list_watchlistThe household's tracked instruments with price, momentum, signal and volatility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| household_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the returned instrument metrics and the household scope, but it doesn't clarify the behavioral implications of the optional household_id parameter or what happens when it is left empty.
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 concise sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple list operation. It could be marginally improved by explicitly starting with 'Lists,' but the current wording is efficient and readable.
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?
With an output schema present, the return-value shape is already covered, and the annotations handle the safety profile. The main gap is the missing explanation of the optional household_id parameter and the lack of usage routing among sibling list tools, which are enough to prevent this from being fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented household_id parameter. The phrase 'household's tracked instruments' loosely connects the tool to a household, but it does not explain how household_id maps to the result, whether it is required, or what the default '' means behaviorally.
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 identifies a specific resource ('household's tracked instruments') and the data it returns (price, momentum, signal, volatility), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It doesn't explicitly say 'lists' but the verb is present in the tool name and title, so there is no ambiguity about the action.
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. Given the large sibling list containing many get_* and list_* tools, an agent receives no signal about which scenarios call for list_watchlist rather than, for example, get_signals_recent or get_portfolio_positions.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but several pairs overlap in purpose: get_market_data and list_watchlist both return watchlist prices/signals, and the four 'brief' tools have fuzzy boundaries. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deeper context.
The dominant verb_noun pattern (get_* for details, list_* for collections) is clear and consistent in style. There are minor deviations like lookup_index_by_brand and run_technical_analysis, and several plural collections use get_, but these remain readable and mostly predictable.
39 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and represents a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The broad wealth domain explains some of the count, but many granular getters could be consolidated or curated.
The set covers the advertised wealth surface well—portfolio, risk, credit, real assets, markets, geopolitics, watchlist, goals, family, and documents—but it is read-only and lacks obvious navigation endpoints like list_portfolios or detail views for goals/alerts. Agents can retrieve most data, but not all lifecycle operations or entity enumerations are present.