stock_zt_pool_emFetch all Chinese A-share limit-up stocks for any trading date, with adjustable result limits (30-100) to identify market hotspots and strong momentum.
获取中国A股市场(上证、深证)的所有涨停股票
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 交易日日期(可选)，默认为最近的交易日，格式: 20251231 | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic purpose and does not disclose return format, sort order, date-handling semantics, pagination, or data-source characteristics.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words and puts the core action and scope first. It is concise, though it could have used the available space to add usage or behavior details.
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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be fully actionable. It does not explain what fields are returned, how the result is ordered, or how it relates to the many sibling limit-up and market-snapshot tools.
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 coverage is 100%, with date and limit both described in the schema including format and range. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 '获取' (fetch) and the resource 'all limit-up stocks in the A-share market', with explicit market scope (Shanghai and Shenzhen). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as stock_zt_pool_strong_em, so it falls short of fully distinguishing itself.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related limit-up tools like stock_zt_pool_strong_em, limit_up_scan, or limit_up_latest. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.