get_user_postsFetch recent posts and reposts from a specified Xueqiu user ID to follow their community activity. Ideal for monitoring key investors and analysts.
获取指定雪球用户的最新动态（包含原创和转发）。适合追踪大V的所有发言。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码，默认1 | |
| count | No | 每页数量，默认10，最大20 | |
| user_id | Yes | 雪球用户ID（纯数字） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| posts | 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 that results include original and reposted content and represent the latest activity, which is useful context but not deep behavioral detail.
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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, content scope, and intended use case without any filler. Every part 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?
For a simple paginated read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers content scope and purpose adequately. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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%, with all parameters (user_id, page, count) already documented including defaults and limits. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema is sufficient, so baseline 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?
Description uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('指定雪球用户的最新动态'), and explicitly notes it includes both original and forwarded posts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_articles, which likely cover only original articles.
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 gives a concrete use case: '适合追踪大V的所有发言', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for basic routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.