Cninfo Financial Analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 查询 ('query') conveys a non-mutating read operation, and the listed indicators clarify expected content. But the description does not disclose whether results are annual snapshots, how missing indicators like R&D ratio are handled, or whether there are data-coverage caveats.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and then packs the key indicator examples into a parenthetical list. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 two-parameter tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description is mostly complete: it names the exact metrics and the schema covers accepted inputs. The only meaningful gap is the absence of selection guidance among sibling cninfo tools, which is a moderate completeness shortfall.

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 code and years parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; the listed indicators are about the output, not the inputs, so it provides no additional parameter guidance beyond the schema's baseline.

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 tool's action: query financial-analysis metrics for A-share companies, and it names the specific indicators returned (ROE, net margin, revenue growth, gross margin, R&D ratio). It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like cninfo_company_profile or cninfo_compare_companies, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer to use this tool when it needs financial-ratio indicators for an A-share company, based on the indicator list. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over the sibling cninfo tools or web_search, so the guidance is not complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.