get_industry_listFetch industry sector lists with up-to-date gains and losses. Select a sector level (1-3) to access real-time percentage changes for each industry.
获取行业板块列表及涨跌数据，可查看各行业的实时涨跌幅。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | 行业级别，1=一级行业，2=二级行业，默认1 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| industries | 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'real-time涨跌幅' context but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as data freshness, pagination, or rate limits; this is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the real-time nature of the data.
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 list endpoint with one optional fully-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. The only notable absence is explicit guidance on when to choose this over related sibling tools, but that is a minor gap here.
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%: the 'level' parameter is fully documented with type, range, default, and meaning. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not exceed the schema's documentation.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves an industry sector list with real-time gain/loss data, using a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough to distinguish from stock-specific tools like get_stock_industry, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.
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 like get_stock_industry, get_stock_quote, or get_batch_quotes. The description simply states what the tool returns without giving selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.