Retrieve A-share industry directories, current constituents, and index history using SW or Eastmoney taxonomies. Filter by classification level, symbol, and date range.
Canonical skill industry directory/members/index history. Explicit SW/Eastmoney taxonomies; current constituents, not historical membership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| level | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| action | No | directory | |
| symbol | No | ||
| no_cache | No | ||
| taxonomy | No | sw |
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 it discloses only that constituents are current rather than historical. It omits action-mode behavior, caching implications, return shape, and any read-only/auth context for a seven-parameter data tool.
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 compact sentences with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The slash-packed phrase 'directory/members/index history' is slightly dense, but overall it is efficient.
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 seven-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It states the domain and one membership caveat but leaves action semantics and most parameter behavior unspecified.
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%, so the description must explain seven parameters; it only indirectly maps taxonomy to SW/Eastmoney and action to directory/members/index history, while start, end, level, symbol, and no_cache remain unexplained. This leaves most parameters undocumented.
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 names the resource ('industry directory/members/index history') and scopes it to SW/Eastmoney taxonomies and current constituents. It is clear enough to identify the data domain, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_industries or get_industry_members.
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?
It provides a negative scope ('not historical membership') but no positive guidance on when to choose this tool over list_industries, get_industry_members, or get_stock_industry. The agent must infer usage from the noun list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.