MCP Server for stock and crypto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('获取'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a real-time or historical data source. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or structural fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what '关键指标' (key indicators) includes (e.g., P/E ratio, revenue, debt levels), the data source, update frequency, or return format. For a financial data tool with no structured output documentation, users need more context to understand what they'll receive and how to interpret it.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'symbol' documented as '股票代码' (stock code). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples (e.g., '0700.HK' for Tencent), validation rules, or contextual usage notes. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取港股市场的股票财务报告关键指标' (Get key indicators from Hong Kong stock market financial reports). It specifies the verb '获取' (get/retrieve), the resource '关键指标' (key indicators), and the scope '港股市场的股票财务报告' (Hong Kong stock market financial reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stock_indicators_a' or 'stock_indicators_us' beyond the regional scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'stock_indicators_a' (likely for A-shares) or 'stock_indicators_us' (likely for US stocks), nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this tool over others in the server.

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