get_user_cubesRetrieve the list of investment portfolios created by a specific Xueqiu user, showing portfolio names, codes, returns, and follower counts.
获取某个雪球用户创建的投资组合列表。可看到组合名称、代码、收益率、关注人数等。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码，默认1 | |
| count | No | 每页数量，默认20，最大50 | |
| user_id | Yes | 雪球用户ID（纯数字），可从用户主页URL获取 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| cubes | Yes | ||
| total | No | ||
| has_more | Yes | ||
| next_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral value by clarifying the returned information scope (portfolio name, code, yield, follower count) and by explicitly scoping the resource to user-created cubes.
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 that conveys both the purpose and the main returned fields. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation 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?
For a low-complexity, read-only list tool with rich annotations and a provided output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly distinguishing itself from cube holdings or rebalancing tools, but nothing essential is missing.
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 schema already documents all three parameters — user_id, page, and count — with defaults, constraints, and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 states a specific action — retrieving the list of investment portfolios created by a given Xueqiu user — and names observable fields (portfolio name, code, yield, followers). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_cube_holdings or get_cube_rebalancing.
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 use case is implied: use this to get a user's created portfolios. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as get_cube_holdings, get_user_watchlists, or watchlist-related tools, so the agent has to infer when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.