获取快手短视频热榜；当前不支持翻页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 快手短视频热榜条目。 | |
| 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。 |
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: -[
- "items"
-]New value: +[
+ "items",
+ "points"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the limitation '当前不支持翻页' (pagination not currently supported), which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). This is useful behavioral context, though no other traits are disclosed.
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?
Two short sentences, first states purpose, second states limitation. No wasted words.
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 no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is sufficient for this simple list tool. It mentions the key pagination limitation.
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?
No parameters exist (schema has 0 properties), so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. Baseline 4 applies.
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 explicitly states '获取快手短视频热榜' (Get Kuaishou short video hot list), which clearly defines the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the hot search list, unlike user/profile/video/comment tools.
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 alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. The '当前不支持翻页' (pagination not supported) is a limitation, not usage context. Usage is implied from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.