cninfo_compare_companiesCompare key financial metrics of multiple A-share companies for the latest fiscal years. Input stock codes to get side-by-side core indicators, simplifying peer analysis.
对比多家 A股公司最新财年核心指标。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | Yes | 股票代码列表，如 ["002230", "000063"] | |
| years | No | 财年数，默认 1 |
| 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 must carry the full burden, but it only states the action and says nothing about side effects, data source, delays, rate limits, or the read-only nature. An agent cannot tell from the description whether any side effects or limitations exist beyond the basic purpose.
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 entirety is a single 10-word sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains only essential information, making it highly concise.
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 both parameter and output schemas present, the description needs only to give essential context. It does state the market (A-share) and the comparison aspect, but it omits any caveats like the meaning of 'core indicators' or whether the tool is read-only, and it does not explain how years interacts with 'latest'. This suffices at a basic level but leaves gaps for an agent.
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%, with both parameters (codes and years) already described. The description adds only 'latest fiscal year' language, which could conflict with the years parameter allowing multiple years, and does not elaborate on what 'core indicators' means, so it provides no additional value over the schema.
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 states the action (compare), the resource (multiple A-share companies), and the specificity of data (core indicators of the latest fiscal year). This distinguishes it from single-company tools like cninfo_company_profile and US-focused sec_compare_companies.
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 implicitly suggests using it when comparing multiple A-share companies' latest financial metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, mention exclusions, or provide any routing guidance relative to sibling tools like cninfo_financial_analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.