重命名当前 API key 所属用户的自选股分组，并同步更新该分组内股票。写入工具，仅在用户明确要求改分组名/重命名分组时使用。 何时使用: 重命名当前 API key 所属用户的自选股分组，并同步更新组内股票分组名。只有用户明确要求改分组名/重命名分组时调用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | content[0].text：默认1行 headline；markdown=完整 markdown 表格；json=完整 JSON。 | |
| detailLevel | No | 档位：默认 standard（Agent 可计算标准字段）；summary=压缩摘要；raw=全字段+原始数据。 | |
| newGroupName | Yes | 必填。新的自选股分组名。 | |
| oldGroupName | Yes | 必填。原自选股分组名。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / detailLevel / descriptionPrevious value: -"输出详细度（不传=standard，返回 Agent 可计算标准字段）。summary=压缩摘要；raw=全字段+原始数据。"New value: +"档位：默认 standard（Agent 可计算标准字段）；summary=压缩摘要；raw=全字段+原始数据。"Input schema / properties / format / descriptionPrevious value: -"content[0].text 形态。通常不传=1 行 headline；auction_market_scan / auction_theme_strength 在 standard/raw 档默认直接返回 JSON 明细。markdown=完整 markdown 表格；json=完整 JSON。"New value: +"content[0].text：默认1行 headline；markdown=完整 markdown 表格；json=完整 JSON。"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {},
+ "meta": {},
+ "success": {}
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds a genuine side effect beyond the annotations: the rename also synchronously updates the group name of stocks inside that group. It restates 'write tool' which duplicates readOnlyHint=false, but the sync behavior is real added value.
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 same content is stated three times: the opening sentence, the '何时使用' clause, and the closing clause all say rename the group and only use it on explicit request. The purpose is front-loaded, but roughly two-thirds of the text is redundant repetition rather than earned content.
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?
Given an output schema exists (return values need not be described) and annotations cover the safety and idempotency profile, the description supplies enough to call correctly: purpose, trigger condition, and the stock-sync side effect. It leaves out error handling for a missing oldGroupName, but that is minor.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so oldGroupName, newGroupName, format, and detailLevel are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about parameter format, matching behavior, or what happens if oldGroupName does not exist. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: renaming the watchlist group belonging to the current API key's user. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like watchlist_group_create, watchlist_group_delete, and watchlist_group_list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the action is 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?
Gives a clear trigger condition repeated twice: only call when the user explicitly asks to rename/change a group name. This acts as an exclusion constraint. It does not, however, name alternative tools (e.g., create vs. rename) or explain what to do when the request is ambiguous.
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.