获取抖音主热榜；当前不支持翻页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| points | Yes | 本次成功调用的积分消耗与调用完成时的账户积分余额。 | |
| hot_items | Yes | 抖音主热榜条目 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / pointsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "本次成功调用的积分消耗与调用完成时的账户积分余额。",
+ "properties": {
+ "balance": {
+ "description": "本次接口完成时看到的当前积分余额。",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "cost": {
+ "description": "本次请求最终确认消耗的积分。",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "cost",
+ "balance"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "hot_items"
-]New value: +[
+ "hot_items",
+ "points"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (read-only) and openWorldHint=true (open-world result set). The description adds beyond this by stating pagination is not supported and it retrieves the 'main' list, suggesting possible sub-lists or limitations. This is valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.
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 two short sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination limitation is succinctly stated. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It states the exact action and the only important behavioral constraint (no pagination). Since an output schema exists, no return value explanation is needed.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description does not need to provide additional param info. It is adequate.
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 it retrieves the Douyin main hot search list, using specific verb and resource. The name and description align perfectly, and it is distinct from all sibling tools which deal with user info, videos, or search, making selection unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. However, the tool is the only one for hot search lists among siblings, and with no parameters, usage is straightforward. Implied usage is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.