Get price-based valuation metrics for a stock ticker to evaluate its market worth. Returns limited fundamental data from Sina.
Get valuation data for a stock.
Note: Sina provides limited fundamental data - returns price-based metrics.
Args:
ticker: Stock ticker symbol (e.g., "600519")
Returns:
dict: Price-based valuation info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait beyond the schema: the Sina source returns only limited, price-based fundamentals rather than full valuation metrics, which sets correct expectations. It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure modes.
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 short and front-loaded, with the key limitation stated before the Args/Returns sections. The Returns line is mildly redundant with the opening sentence but nothing is bloated.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description covers the basics but not the specifics. It does not say which price-based metrics are returned or how this tool relates to the overlapping valuation sibling.
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% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does add value by defining ticker as a stock symbol with a concrete example ('600519'), but it omits exchange/prefix conventions and any format constraints.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Get valuation data for a stock'), so an agent knows what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'tushare_get_valuation_multi' or from quote/history tools, so the agent cannot tell which valuation source to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no named alternative despite several closely related siblings (tushare_get_valuation_multi, market_get_stock_quote). The only contextual note is about data source limitations, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.