Retrieve trending topics from major Chinese platforms such as Weibo, Baidu, and Zhihu, filtered by rank and language, to track regional public discourse.
Fetch Chinese platform hot lists. Costs $8 per 1,000 dataset rows on your own Apify account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxRank | No | ||
| language | No | both | |
| maxItems | No | Actor cap on billed dataset rows, before client-side filtering. | |
| platforms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral fact: cost of $8 per 1,000 dataset rows billed to the caller's own Apify account, which implies the user must supply Apify credentials. It stops short of describing whether rows are deduplicated, how filtering interacts with billing, or what the response contains.
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 sentences, no filler, with the capability statement front-loaded and the cost caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what platforms are returned by default, how language filtering works, or what distinguishes the two count-style parameters.
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 only 25% (just maxItems), and the description adds nothing about maxRank, language, or platforms. The billing note tangentially relates to maxItems but does not explain the important distinction that maxRank and maxItems govern different things (ranking depth vs. billed rows).
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 ('Fetch Chinese platform hot lists'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings get_china_news and get_deletions, nor does it name which platforms qualify as 'hot list' sources, leaving overlap with news-fetching unaddressed.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_china_news or get_deletions, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual sentence concerns billing, not usage selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.