Check which broker trade statement formats InvestBrain supports and map their column names to standard fields before importing data.
查看 InvestBrain 支持的券商交割单格式与标准字段映射。
用于导入前确认券商格式兼容性；返回各券商典型列名与标准化字段对照。
Returns:
{brokers: [{id, name, sample_columns}], standard_fields: {...}, note}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; the 'view' verb plus zero parameters make it clear this is a side-effect-free query. It further discloses the shape of the returned data (brokers with id/name/sample_columns, standard_fields, note), which is meaningful behavioral context for a reference tool.
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?
Front-loads the purpose, then the usage condition, then the return shape. The two Chinese sentences overlap slightly in restating the field-mapping idea, but overall the structure is efficient and well ordered.
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?
Because no output schema exists, the embedded Returns block usefully documents the response payload (brokers list, standard_fields, note), which the agent would otherwise lack. For a simple zero-parameter reference tool this is nearly complete, missing only minor details such as whether coverage is exhaustive or cached.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 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?
States a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (支持的券商交割单格式与标准字段映射), making it clear this is a reference lookup for supported broker statement formats and field mappings. It is easily distinguished from siblings like broker_import_statement (which performs the import) and broker_list_trades (which lists trades).
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?
'用于导入前确认券商格式兼容性' explicitly contextualizes when to use it: before an import to verify format compatibility, implicitly routing the agent here ahead of broker_import_statement. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.