Retrieve a company's cash flow statement by Tushare stock code and reporting period to analyze operating, investing, and financing cash flows.
Get cash flow statement (Tushare API: cashflow).
Args:
ts_code: Tushare stock code (e.g., "600519.SH")
period: Reporting period in YYYYMMDD format
Returns:
dict: Cash flow 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?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: "Get" implies a read-only retrieval and it states the return type is a dict. However, it omits permissions, rate limits, pagination, and any detail about the returned cash-flow data structure.
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 purpose, then standard Args/Returns sections. The return line is vague but the overall structure is efficient with little waste.
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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description is sufficient to make a call, but it lacks explicit period optionality and gives no useful return-shape detail despite there being no output schema. Completeness is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 must carry parameter meaning. It does document both parameters: ts_code as a Tushare stock code with an example, and period as YYYYMMDD. It does not note that period is optional/defaulted, which keeps 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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: "Get cash flow statement," and identifies the upstream Tushare API. It is distinguishable from income statement and balance sheet siblings by resource name, though it does not explicitly route between them.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling financial-statement tools such as income statement, balance sheet, or financial indicator. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.