Check if a Tushare token is configured and valid before making market data requests, returning token status and user info.
Check if Tushare token is configured and valid.
Returns:
dict: Token status and user info
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('Token status and user info') and the read-only nature of a 'check', but says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or what an invalid/missing token yields.
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?
One front-loaded sentence states the action and condition, followed by the return type. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema utility, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It stops short of describing failure/invalid-token behavior, which would fully complete it.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. No parameter semantics need explaining, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the description.
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 ('Check') and resource ('Tushare token') with the exact condition tested (configured and valid). Among the many tushare_* siblings that fetch market data, this one's configuration/status-check purpose is unmistakable.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this before other tushare tools to verify credentials. No explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. what to do if the token is invalid) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.