get_user_watchlistsRetrieve a Xueqiu user's watchlist folder structure and stock counts. Use this to analyze portfolio organization and combine with get_watchlist_stocks for detailed holdings.
获取任意雪球用户的自选股分组列表（文件夹结构和数量统计）。配合 get_watchlist_stocks 可查看该用户的自选股详情。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 雪球用户ID（纯数字），可从用户主页URL获取 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cubes | Yes | ||
| funds | 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 the tool as read-only and idempotent, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a folder structure with count statistics and points to a companion tool for details, giving a clearer picture of what the call produces.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence is a useful companion-tool note that 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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, a complete schema, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the resource scope, the nature of the results, and the next step for viewing details, so 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter user_id, with a description explaining it is a pure numeric ID from the user's profile URL. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: '获取任意雪球用户的自选股分组列表' (get any Snowball user's watchlist group list). It also specifies the output as folder structure and count statistics, which distinguishes it from get_watchlist_stocks and the user-specific get_watchlists.
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 clearly states the tool is for any user's watchlist groups and explicitly says to combine it with get_watchlist_stocks to view details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_watchlists or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.