Retrieve key financial indicators for a stock using a Tushare code, including PE, PB, ROE, and gross margin.
Get financial indicators for a stock (Tushare API: fina_indicator).
Includes: PE, PB, ROE, gross margin, etc.
Args:
ts_code: Tushare stock code (e.g., "600519.SH")
Returns:
dict: Financial indicators
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'Get' and mentions the return is a dict, but does not disclose Tushare authentication requirements, rate limits, which reporting period or frequency the indicators cover, or whether data is cached. Coverage is thin for a domain tool requiring a token.
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-loaded and readable, but the 'Args:' section merely restates the single schema field, and the 'Returns:' line adds little ('dict: Financial indicators' just echoes the title). Some boilerplate that could be trimmed, though nothing is egregious.
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 read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: it says what the tool returns in general terms. Gaps remain around data period/frequency and the meaning of the returned fields, but for this complexity level it is minimally viable.
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 compensate. It does add value by giving the ts_code format example ('600519.SH'), which the schema omits entirely. It doesn't explain whether the code is optional, case-sensitive, or how other exchanges are formatted, so compensation is partial.
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+resource ('Get financial indicators for a stock') and names the source API and some fields (PE, PB, ROE, gross margin). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like tushare_get_valuation_multi or market_get_valuation, which also surface valuation metrics, so the boundary is left implicit.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The agent must infer from the sibling list whether this or market_get_valuation is appropriate. Only the underlying API name hints at its scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.