FinanceMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a data retrieval operation ('获取'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or provides real-time versus historical data. The description lacks crucial operational context for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, efficiently packed sentence that lists all major data categories. While dense, it avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point. The structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the core purpose more clearly, but overall it's appropriately concise.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose clarity but lacks operational guidance and behavioral context. It covers what data is available but not how to effectively use the tool or interpret results. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more context about return formats.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already comprehensively documents all 5 parameters including detailed enum values for data_type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't provide extra value.

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 explicitly states '获取上市公司综合表现数据' (retrieve comprehensive performance data for listed companies) and provides a detailed list of specific data types including financial statements, management information, and shareholder data. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like stock_data or index_data by focusing on comprehensive company performance metrics rather than market trading data.

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. While it mentions comprehensive data retrieval, it doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools like company_performance_hk or company_performance_us, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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