Retrieve complete metadata for a single AKShare financial data interface by name, including parameters and return details, to inspect its usage before calling it.
返回单个接口的完整元数据。
:param name: 接口名，如 "stock_zh_a_hist" :return: 完整元数据 :rtype: dict
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the return type (dict) and the notion of 'complete metadata'; it does not say what the metadata contains, whether unknown names error out, or how large the payload is.
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?
Very short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by the param and return lines. Slight redundancy in :return: 完整元数据 restating the opening sentence, but nothing seriously wasteful.
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 single-purpose introspection tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves a real gap: the whole point is the returned metadata, yet its structure, fields, or size are never characterized. It also omits error behavior for an invalid interface name.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden: it explains that name is the interface name (接口名) and supplies a concrete example ("stock_zh_a_hist"). That is a meaningful addition beyond the bare `string` type, though the expected naming convention/casing rules are not stated.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: returns the complete metadata of a single interface. Given that every sibling tool is a concrete data-fetching endpoint (stock_zh_a_hist, macro_china_cpi, etc.), the fact that this one is a metadata/introspection tool is discernible, though the description never explicitly frames it as the discovery counterpart to those siblings.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as list_categories, search, or pro_api that could also help an agent find an interface. The only usage signal is the inline example value for the name parameter, which helps parameterization but not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.