get_inner_trade_dataGet insider trading records for a Chinese stock ticker to monitor corporate insider transactions.
Get company insider trading data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol/ticker (e.g. '000001') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Input schema / properties / symbol / titleRemoved value: -"Symbol"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"_WrappedResult"Does 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 implies a read operation through 'Get' but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, data coverage, or any caveats about insider trading data.
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 concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. For a one-parameter tool, this is appropriately sized.
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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for basic invocation, but it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context because no annotations exist. The output schema covers return values, so this is not a complete failure.
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?
The schema already documents the symbol parameter with an example, so coverage is 100%. The description adds the context that the data is company-level insider trading but does not provide any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get company insider trading data.' It clearly states what the tool does and the domain is distinct from sibling tools like get_news_data or get_balance_sheet, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 the available sibling tools. There are no prerequisites, no exclusion cases, and no mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.