Retrieve real-time valuation and fundamental metrics for a single A-share stock symbol. Includes P/E, P/B, market cap, and turnover rate.
获取单只 A 股的估值与基本面指标。
返回：市盈率(TTM)、市净率、总市值、流通市值、换手率、振幅、涨跌停价等。
Args: symbol: 股票代码，如 "600519"。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 获取 implies a read-only retrieval, and the return list adds output context, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or rate limits. For a simple data getter this is adequate but not richly transparent.
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 front-loaded with purpose, then lists returns, then documents the argument. It is short and well structured. The return list is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it is not verbose or wasteful.
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-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, output metrics, and the sole parameter. The main missing piece is usage guidance relative to siblings, but the output schema and implied read-only nature make it largely complete.
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 must compensate. It documents the single symbol parameter as a stock code with an example ('600519'), which is enough to invoke the tool correctly. It could specify format constraints (e.g., 6-digit A-share code) but the example is sufficient.
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 (获取) and resource (单只 A 股的估值与基本面指标), and lists the returned metrics. It distinguishes from siblings only implicitly by focusing on fundamentals rather than quotes or history; no explicit sibling differentiation is given.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not name alternatives such as get_stock_quote or get_stock_history, nor does it explain when this tool is preferable. Usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.