Retrieve a stock's income statement (P&L) from Tushare by stock code and optional reporting period to support financial analysis.
Get income statement (P&L) for a stock (Tushare API: income).
Args:
ts_code: Tushare stock code (e.g., "600519.SH")
period: Reporting period in YYYYMMDD format (e.g., "20250331" for Q1 2025)
Returns:
dict: Income statement 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 disclosure burden. It mentions the return is a dict of income statement data, but never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, rate-limit behavior, or how stale/complete the data is. For a data-fetch tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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?
Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first line and parameters/return grouped after. The parenthetical Tushare API note is minor filler 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?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics of inputs and return type. It still omits when-to-use guidance and the omission behavior of the period default, leaving meaningful 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description does add value by giving both parameter names with format guidance and examples (e.g., "600519.SH", "20250331"). However, it never explains the schema's default of empty string for period or what happens when period is omitted, which is the semantically important gap.
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 and resource (get income statement / P&L) plus the upstream API it wraps, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like tushare_get_balance_sheet and tushare_get_cash_flow. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
The description says nothing about when to call this versus the other financial-statement tools, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid token or a listed stock code. Usage is left entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.