Retrieve constituent stocks of Shenwan industry indices for any level (first, second, or third) using the industry code. Get the current pool of stocks for a given Shenwan sector.
查询申万指数成分股（一/二/三级行业通用，差异只在池子大小）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回前N只 | |
| 行业代码 | Yes | 申万指数代码，如 801010(一级) / 801011(二级) / 850111(三级)，不传.si后缀 |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that level differences only affect pool size, which is useful behavioral context, and '查询' indicates a read operation. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether results are sorted, whether the limit caps a larger underlying set, or any data-source caveats. It is adequate but not rich.
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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately adds the most important qualifier. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema.
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 simple two-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation knowledge: what it returns (constituents), what parameter values it accepts (all Shenwan levels), and how those levels differ. The only notable gap is not signaling when to use the related detail tool, but overall the definition is sufficient for correct basic use.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying that a single 行业代码 parameter works for level 1, 2, or 3 indices and that the only difference is the constituent pool size. This directly helps the agent choose appropriate values without needing a different tool per level.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 查询申万指数成分股 (query Shenwan index constituents). The parenthetical adds scope by noting it works across level 1/2/3 industries and that the only difference is universe size. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as industry_sw_constituents_detail, but the resource and level coverage make the purpose reasonably distinct.
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 implies the tool is the general-purpose constituent query across Shenwan industry levels, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like industry_sw_tree or industry_sw_constituents_detail, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The usage guidance is implied rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.