查询当前 API Key 账户的 SocialDataX 积分余额、剩余积分或点数 / remaining points balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) and does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already convey, such as whether the call consumes credits or any authentication notes. It is a minimal, accurate statement that does not enrich the annotation-provided context.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant phrases, and the bilingual format (Chinese with English gloss) is efficient, ensuring clarity without verbosity.
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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description provides the essential purpose. It lacks workflow context (e.g., when to check the balance) and does not describe the return format, but the output schema covers that. The absence of usage guidance is a minor gap; overall it is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (vacuously) and the description correctly avoids any parameter explanations. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where no additional semantic clarification is needed.
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 verb '查询' (query) and the resource 'SocialDataX 积分余额' (points balance) for the current API key account, with an English gloss. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the weibo-focused sibling tools, which all deal with posts, comments, or user data.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions (e.g., checking balance before making requests). However, since all siblings are weibo data tools and this is a unique account-balance query, the usage context is implied rather than stated.
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.
每个工具都明确对应一个特定的数据获取操作（热搜、帖子详情、评论、点赞、转发、用户信息、用户帖子、搜索、视频语音转文字），通过资源类型和获取方式进行区分。虽然存在 by_post_id 和 by_post_url 成对工具，但描述清晰指出不同输入方式，没有实质重叠。
所有工具均使用 snake_case 命名，统一以 weibo_ 前缀开头，遵循 '动词_目标_定位方式' 模式（如 get_post_comments_by_post_id、submit_video_speech_text_by_post_url），命名规则高度一致且可预测。
19个工具对于微博数据获取服务来说略多，但每个工具都有明确的职责，且成对出现的 URL 和 ID 变体是合理设计。数量在可接受范围内，没有冗余或缺失。
覆盖了微博的主要只读数据获取场景：热搜、帖子详情、评论、点赞、转发、用户信息、用户帖子、搜索、视频语音转文字。缺少发帖或删除等写操作，但该服务器定位为数据获取，故不算严重缺口。视频语音转文字提供了提交和查询两个环节，生命周期完整。