financial_indicatorsRetrieve up to 86 key financial indicators for any Chinese stock, including revenue, net profit, margins, ROE, and EPS, to support fundamental analysis and investment decisions.
获取个股86项财务指标，包括营收、净利润、毛利率、净利率、ROE、每股收益等所有关键财务数据
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回期数 | |
| symbol | Yes | 6位股票代码，如 000001 | |
| start_year | No | 起始年份，如 2020 | 2020 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 identifies the operation as a read (获取) and gives output examples, but it does not disclose data source, update frequency, parameter limits, or error behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and then expanding with examples. It is slightly list-heavy, but every listed item is informative, yielding a concise and structured presentation.
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?
The tool has an output schema and fully documented parameters, so return values and inputs are covered elsewhere. However, the description omits the market scope (A-share vs HK/US) and the reporting frequency, which matters given sibling tools explicitly target HK and US stocks. This is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.
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?
All three parameters (symbol, limit, start_year) have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, and the listed indicators are output content rather than input semantics.
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 states a specific action ('获取') applied to a well-defined resource ('个股86项财务指标') and enumerates representative indicators (营收, 净利润, 毛利率, 净利率, ROE, 每股收益), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as financial_statements or stock_indicators_hk/us, so it falls short of a 5.
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 instead of alternatives such as financial_statements, peer_comparison, or the HK/US stock indicator tools. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.