Fetch a stock's Shenwan industry classification from Tushare by stock code. Use the ts_code to return its SW industry sector.
Get industry classification for a stock (Tushare API: stock_basic + industry).
Args:
ts_code: Tushare stock code (e.g., "600519.SH")
Returns:
dict: Industry info (SW industry, Shenwan classification)
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (SW industry, Shenwan classification) and the backing API endpoints, but says nothing about auth/token requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or fallback behavior when classification is unavailable.
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 purpose sentence, then compact Args/Returns sections. The structure is efficient, though the Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly heavier than the one-line payload warrants.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the return payload (SW/Shenwan industry), which is the main missing piece structured data would otherwise supply. It is adequate but leaves auth requirements and error/token behavior 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only labels the field 'Ts Code', so the description meaningfully compensates by specifying the Tushare stock code format with an example ('600519.SH'). No additional parameter nuance (exchange suffix handling, type) is given beyond that example.
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 industry classification for a stock') and names the underlying Tushare sources, so the agent knows exactly what data is returned. No sibling tool competes for industry classification, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but the description doesn't route against any alternative either.
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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and resource alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.