Retrieve Shenwan index constituents with latest price, daily change, and turnover to drill down into stocks from any industry level.
查询申万指数成分股及当日涨跌幅/最新价/换手率（一/二/三级行业通用），用于二级行业下钻查看个股
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回前N只（按权重降序） | |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the main output fields and industry-level scope. However, it does not describe ordering behavior, data freshness, handling of invalid codes, or the effect of the limit parameter beyond what the schema already states.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, quickly mentions the covered levels, and ends with the intended use case. No words are wasted.
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 the tool has only two params and an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, the presence of the closely named sibling industry_sw_constituents is not addressed, and without annotations the description leaves some behavioral details unstated, such as how output is ordered and whether there are limitations on returned rows.
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 parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds a general reference to industry levels and the drill-down use case, but it does not add meaningfully beyond the schema's examples and param descriptions.
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 clearly states the verb and resource: querying Shenwan index constituent stocks with daily change, latest price, and turnover rate. It also notes it applies to level 1/2/3 industries and is used for drilling into individual stocks from a secondary industry. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling industry_sw_constituents.
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 provides clear usage context: it is for drilling down from a secondary industry to view individual stocks, and it explicitly states the tool supports level 1/2/3 industries. It does not mention when to prefer another tool or exclude alternatives, but the stated use case is concrete enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.