Fetch the stored A-share stock screening results from the database for incremental what's new today analysis, and return a helpful note if no picks are saved.
查最近一次选股结果(读DB秒回，演示首选)。空库时友好提示。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the read hits the DB and returns instantly, and that an empty database produces a friendly prompt instead of an error. Permissions, rate limits, and result shape are not covered, keeping it below a 5.
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 short clauses with the core purpose front-loaded and zero padding. The parenthetical demo hint is slightly promotional rather than informational, but the entry still earns its length.
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?
A zero-parameter tool with an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, latency expectations, and the empty-DB edge case, which is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the implicit 'most recent' default behavior.
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+resource: retrieves the most recent stock-screening results, with 'latest' clarifying scope against siblings like run_screen and quote. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can distinguish it from run_screen (which produces a screen) without opening a schema.
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?
'演示首选' (preferred for demos) and '读DB秒回' (instant DB read) imply when to reach for this tool rather than run_screen, but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative. Usage 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.