Retrieve balance sheet data for a given Tushare stock code and reporting period to support financial analysis and investment research.
Get balance sheet data (Tushare API: balancesheet).
Args:
ts_code: Tushare stock code (e.g., "600519.SH")
period: Reporting period in YYYYMMDD format
Returns:
dict: Balance sheet data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | ||
| ts_code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that the result is a dict and does not disclose permissions, data freshness, rate limits, pagination, or behavior when period is omitted.
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 purpose and uses a compact Args/Returns structure with little wasted text. The return line 'dict: Balance sheet data' is minimally informative but not verbose.
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?
Covers the call parameters and basic return type for a simple retrieval tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the vague return description leaves the agent without field-level context, and optional-period behavior is undocumented.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description documents both parameters: ts_code as a Tushare stock code with an example, and period as a YYYYMMDD reporting period. It still omits optional/default behavior for period, keeping it from a 5.
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 ('Get') and resource ('balance sheet data'), and identifies the Tushare endpoint. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling financial-statement tools such as tushare_get_income_statement or tushare_get_cash_flow, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.
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?
Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say when to choose this over sibling financial statement tools, nor does it mention prerequisites; usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.