Fetch verified investor relations and earnings release URLs plus selected attributes for one Japanese listed company by securities code. Request only needed fields to control credit use.
証券コードを指定して1社の詳細情報を取得します (消費クレジット: 指定した列数｡1列につき1クレジット)｡既に持っている列は要求しないようにしてください｡
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 証券コード (4桁または5桁｡例: 7203 または 72030) | |
| fields | No | 取得する列 (カンマ区切り｡既定 ir_url)｡指定した列数分のクレジットを消費します |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the credit cost model ('1 credit per column') and a constraint on redundant field requests, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, error behavior, or what the response contains.
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?
Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost/constraint note following. Efficient, though the parenthetical cost formula is somewhat dense.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, an agent gets purpose, input shape, and cost behavior but no sense of the returned payload's structure or size limits. Adequate for a simple 2-parameter lookup, but not thorough.
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 100%, so both parameters (code, fields) are already documented, including the default and the credit-cost note on fields. The description largely reiterates the schema's cost statement rather than adding new format or syntax detail — baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: retrieve detailed information for one company by stock code. This clearly separates it from search_companies and resolve_company by scope (single-company detail lookup), though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Adds a real usage rule — don't request columns you already have — which is a cost-motivated constraint rather than a when-to-use-vs-alternative directive. It does not say when to prefer this tool over resolve_company or search_companies, so guidance is implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.