stock_lhb_ggtj_sinaGet China A-share Dragon-Tiger List individual stock statistics for the last 5-60 days, with configurable result limits from 30 to 100 entries. Identify active stocks from exchange data.
获取中国A股市场(上证、深证)的龙虎榜个股上榜统计数据
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | 统计最近天数，仅支持: [5/10/30/60] | 5 |
| limit | No | 返回数量(int,30-100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool obtains statistics; it does not describe the output structure, sorting, time zone, data source quirks, or any limitations. For a data-retrieval tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded with the resource and action, and every word 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?
Despite having a clear schema, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should explain what the returned 'statistics' contain. It does not mention fields, units, ordering, or grouping, leaving an agent guessing about the actual data shape. The tool is simple, but the description is too thin to be fully complete.
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 (days supported values, limit range). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('中国A股市场龙虎榜个股上榜统计数据'), clearly identifying the tool as a query for A-share Dragon-Tiger List ranking statistics. It is distinguishable from siblings like stock_zt_pool_em (limit-up pool) or market_overview, though the exact nature of 'statistics' is somewhat vague.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling (e.g., limit_up_scan, stock_zt_pool_em) would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.