Retrieve CSRC regulatory announcements and notices from csrc.gov.cn by date range or category to track Chinese securities compliance updates.
List CSRC regulatory announcements/notices (csrc.gov.cn).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max rows (default 20). | |
| category | No | optional channel hint (informational). | |
| end_date | No | ||
| begin_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read operation via the verb 'List'. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, coverage window, rate limits, or what the underlying source returns, leaving the agent to guess at operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence with the resource and domain front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though so terse that it does no structural work beyond identification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with four optional parameters, no annotations, and undocumented begin/end date filters, the description leaves key calling decisions (especially date scoping) unaddressed. It is under-specified for a list tool with temporal parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: limit and category are described in the schema, but begin_date and end_date are undocumented anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the gap, notably the date-range filtering that the two undocumented parameters clearly imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (CSRC regulatory announcements/notices) plus the source domain (csrc.gov.cn), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling filing listers like list_szse_filings or list_bse_filings. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent CSRC siblings such as list_csrc_enforcement or get_csrc_ipo_review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling list_* tools (list_filings, list_sse_filings, list_csrc_enforcement), nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the regulator name in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.