获取微博热搜列表；只返回 items，当前不支持翻页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 微博热搜条目列表。 | |
| 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。 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds important behavioral context: it only returns items and does not support pagination. These details are not covered by the annotations and are valuable for the agent.
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 that front-loads the purpose and mentions the two key limitations. Every element earns its place with no filler.
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 and an output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the return shape, and the pagination limitation. It is fully sufficient for a simple read-only list tool.
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, and with schema description coverage at 100%, there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
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 '获取微博热搜列表' (Get Weibo hot search list), using a specific verb and resource. This tool is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on individual posts, comments, or user info.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Its unique scope implies usage, but the lack of explicit guidance leaves it at the 'implied' level.
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。