cninfo_company_profileRetrieve basic profiles of A-share companies using a 6-digit stock code. Access public Eastmoney data to get essential company details for investment research.
查询 A股公司基本信息（东方财富公开接口）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 股票代码，A股 6 位，如 600519 | |
| market | No | 市场，ashare（默认） | ashare |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It indicates a query operation ('查询') and states the interface is public ('公开接口'), implying read-only behavior and no authentication. However, it does not mention rate limits, failure modes, data freshness, or what happens with invalid codes, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core action, target, and data source with no redundant fluff. It is front-loaded with the main function, and the parenthetical source adds useful context without bloating the text.
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 lookup tool, the description covers the essential purpose and source, while the output schema and fully described parameters fill in return and input details. The main missing piece is usage differentiation from similar cninfo sibling tools, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.
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 the schema already documents both 'code' and 'market' parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, beyond confirming the general purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.
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 clearly specifies a verb ('查询') and resource ('A股公司基本信息'), and identifies the data source as the Eastmoney public interface. It is contextually distinct from sibling tools like cninfo_financial_analysis and cninfo_compare_companies, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cninfo_financial_analysis or cninfo_compare_companies. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor any exclusions or conditions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.