remove_watchlist_fundRemove a fund from your Xueqiu watchlist fund group by providing its fund code (e.g., F161039 or P000700). Requires an active login session.
从当前用户的自选基金分组中删除一只基金。需要有效登录态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | 基金代码，如 F161039（公募）、P000700（私募） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | 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 destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the authentication requirement ('需要有效登录态') and clarifies that the operation targets the current user's own watchlist fund group, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.
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?
Two short sentences convey the action, scope, and auth requirement with no filler. The key action is front-loaded and every clause adds necessary information.
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?
Given a single parameter, existing output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description provides the essential auth context and current-user scope. It could additionally mention behavior when the fund is absent or explicitly route to sibling tools, but those are minor gaps for a simple removal operation.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'symbol' with type, length constraints, and example fund codes. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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 states a specific verb ('删除'/remove), a precise resource ('自选基金分组中的一只基金'/a fund in the current user's watchlist fund group), and scope ('当前用户'/current user). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_watchlist_stock and remove_watchlist_cube.
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 intended usage is implied: use this when a fund should be removed from the current user's watchlist. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over remove_watchlist_stock or remove_watchlist_cube, nor does it mention any exclusions. The login requirement is a useful precondition but not full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.