Retrieve CSI 300 constituent stocks for a chosen date, with optional limit and output format settings, to support A-share index research and screening.
CSI 300 constituents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| format | No | markdown |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of stocks, their details), any side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior beyond its name.
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 extremely concise with a single phrase, 'CSI 300 constituents.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.
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?
Given the complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, making it inadequate for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 parameters 'date', 'limit', and 'format' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as their purpose (e.g., date for historical constituents, limit for pagination, format for output type), leaving their semantics completely unclear.
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?
The description 'CSI 300 constituents' restates the tool name 'get_hs300_stocks' without specifying the action. It identifies the resource (CSI 300 stocks) but lacks a verb indicating what the tool does with them (e.g., fetch, list, retrieve). This is tautological and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get_index_constituents' or 'get_sz50_stocks'.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_index_constituents' (which might be more general) or 'get_sz50_stocks' (for another index), nor does it specify any context or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.