get_hot_stocksRetrieve hot stock rankings from Xueqiu, filterable by A-share, Hong Kong, or US markets. Get a list of trending stocks for market analysis.
获取雪球热门股票排行榜。可按市场筛选：A股、港股、美股。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | 数量，默认10，最大50 | |
| market | No | 市场：A（A股）、HK（港股）、US（美股） | A |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| stocks | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behaviors. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., caching, rate limits, side effects), but also does not contradict the annotations.
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 that directly states the purpose and the key filter. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.
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 read-only tool, the description provides sufficient context to understand its function and the main parameter. It does not specify the output format, but that is not strictly necessary for this kind of ranking endpoint.
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 input schema covers both parameters (count and market) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: retrieving hot stock rankings from Xueqiu, with an explicit filter by market. It is specific and unambiguous.
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 a usage hint about filtering by market, but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over sibling tools like get_hot_posts or screen_stocks. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.