create_watchlistCreate a watchlist with the given name and ticker symbols.
Args:
name: Watchlist name
symbols: List of stock symbols (e.g. ["AAPL", "MSFT"])
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| symbols | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only repeats the basic creation action and parameter names, adding no behavioral details such as idempotency, duplicate handling, permissions, or return value behavior. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description offers no extra transparency beyond that minimal signal.
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 extremely concise, with a direct opening sentence and minimal parameter explanations. No fluff or repetition; every line serves a clear purpose and is front-loaded with the core action.
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 two straightforward parameters and an output schema exists, so the description covers the essentials. However, it omits behavioral context like what happens on duplicate names or whether the action is reversible, and lacks usage guidance, leaving it adequate but incomplete for an AI agent.
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 has no descriptions for parameters, so the description's Args section adds some value. 'symbols' is clarified with an example (['AAPL', 'MSFT']), aiding understanding, while 'name' is tautological ('Watchlist name'). This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage but is not deeply informative.
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 clearly states the tool creates a watchlist with a given name and ticker symbols, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_watchlist by focusing on the creation action, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_watchlist or list_watchlists. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Portfolio, alert, watchlist, library, journal, and search tools have clearly separated purposes with no overlapping functionality. Even similar tools like get_portfolio_statistics and get_positions provide different outputs.
The majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_portfolio, delete_library_item). However, 'finance_search' inverts the verb-noun order and 'run_deepdive' uses a less common verb, creating minor but noticeable exceptions.
31 tools is on the high side but each serves a distinct purpose across portfolio management, alerts, watchlists, library, journal, search, and bug reporting. The library subsystem alone accounts for 11 tools (CRUD + versions + move + rename + search), which is justifiable for a full document manager.
Core operations are present but several lifecycle gaps exist: no delete_watchlist, delete_portfolio, update_portfolio, update_alert, or delete_transaction. The journal and deepdive areas also lack update/delete capabilities. Agents may hit dead ends when trying to remove or modify certain resources.