AgentLadle MCP AKShare

get_shareholder_top

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the top 10 shareholders history for a given security symbol. Optionally filter by holder type and specify number of recent report periods.

Instructions

Get top 10 shareholders history.

Directly invoke with symbol. get_shareholder_top(symbol="000001.SZ", count=2)

Args: symbol: Security symbol holder_type: all/circulating (default all) count: Recent N report periods (default 4)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "get_shareholder_top"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`count`	No
`symbol`	Yes
`holder_type`	No	all

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`hint`	No
`error`	No
`cached`	No
`source`	No
`status`	Yes
`updated_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral disclosures beyond explaining parameters and usage. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured with sections for strategy, examples, and args. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage adequately, though more detail on holder_type values could be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter (symbol, holder_type, count) with meaning and defaults, thus compensating for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get top 10 shareholders history', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_shareholder_count' (which likely gets total count) by focusing on top shareholders.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a <strategy> tag instructing to 'Directly invoke with symbol' and provides an example. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context and example give clear usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server