获取B站热搜词。返回当前榜单条目，含排名、标题或关键词、热度值。做趋势信号、选题参考时用，适合定时轮询。单价¥0.1/次，仅成功调用计费，失败或空结果自动退回。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "bili_hot_search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 数量（默认 20） | |
| _token | No | 备用鉴权：fw_ 开头的 token。推荐改用 HTTP Header X-FW-Token。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts the annotations cannot express: pricing (¥0.1/call), success-only billing, and automatic refunds on failure or empty results — highly relevant for an agent deciding whether to poll.
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?
Four short clauses in a single compact block: purpose, return shape, usage scenario, billing terms — each front-loaded and earning its place. No repetition of the title or schema 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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields, and with all parameters documented in the schema, the remaining gaps are minor. Only a note on how `limit` truncates the ranking would make it fully self-sufficient.
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 both parameters (limit with default 20, and the _token fallback auth) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter's effect on the response, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ("获取B站热搜词") and immediately enumerates the returned fields (排名、标题或关键词、热度值), which clearly separates it from search-style siblings like bili_keyword_search. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
"做趋势信号、选题参考时用，适合定时轮询" gives a concrete usage context and even a calling pattern (scheduled polling). There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for cases where keyword search would be better, so it falls short of the top band.
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.