Fetch real-time stock quotes by Tushare code to retrieve current price, change percentage, and volume for investment monitoring.
Get realtime quote for a stock (Tushare API:实时行情).
Args:
ts_code: Tushare stock code (e.g., "600519.SH")
Returns:
dict: Current price, change %, volume, etc.
| 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 and does not meet it. It does not disclose rate limits, token/auth requirements, whether data is delayed, or freshness semantics — all relevant for a realtime market-data call.
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: purpose first, then the single argument with an example, then a brief return note. Minimal waste, though the Args/Returns skeleton is slightly verbose for one parameter.
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 one-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, the arg format, and a rough return summary, which is adequate. But with no output schema it only gestures at returns ('etc.') and omits freshness/auth context an agent would want before calling.
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% (the property is bare 'Ts Code'), so the description must compensate. It does add real value by giving the Tushare code format and an example ('600519.SH'), which the schema lacks. However it says nothing about exchange suffixes beyond the example or optional filtering.
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 ('realtime quote for a stock'), which clearly separates it from the daily/weekly price siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from the near-synonym market_get_stock_quote, but the 'realtime' qualifier carries meaningful scope.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The word 'realtime' implies it is the intraday counterpart to tushare_get_daily_price, but the agent must infer this rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.