peer_comparisonCompare a stock against industry peers across growth, valuation, DuPont analysis, and company size. Retrieve key metrics for informed investment decisions.
获取行业内成长性、估值、杜邦分析、公司规模等四个维度的同业对比数据
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | 市场标识: sh, sz, bj | sh |
| symbol | Yes | 6位股票代码，如 600519 |
| 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. The verb '获取' correctly implies a read-only lookup, and the four dimensions add useful content context. However, the description omits details such as data source, definition of the peer group, update frequency, or potential limitations, which an agent would benefit from knowing in the absence of annotations.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the four comparison dimensions. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.
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?
For a simple two-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is that it does not clarify what defines '行业内' (industry scope), but this is a minor omission given the overall simplicity of the tool and the presence of structured metadata.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (market and symbol) already documented with examples and allowed values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 uses a specific verb ('获取' / retrieve) and identifies the resource as industry peer comparison data, explicitly enumerating four dimensions: growth, valuation, DuPont analysis, and company size. This clearly states the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from related fundamental-analysis siblings such as financial_indicators or quality_stock_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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer appropriate usage purely from the tool name and purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.