add_to_watchlistAdd one or more stocks to the user's watchlist. Idempotent — adding a stock that's already followed is a no-op.
Use cases: • User says "Watch RELIANCE" → single add • User says "Add all Nifty IT stocks to my watchlist" → you look up the symbols, then add them • User says "Track TCS, INFY, WIPRO" → bulk add
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | Yes | Stock symbols to add to watchlist (e.g. ['RELIANCE', 'TCS']) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description concretely explains the idempotency no-op, which adds some clarity, but it does not add behavioral context beyond annotations such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects on watchlist ordering.
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 operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the idempotency note and scannable use-case bullets. The structure is efficient and every element helps an agent match user intent to the tool.
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 one-parameter write operation with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, idempotency behavior, and representative usage scenarios.
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% for the single symbols parameter, and the schema itself provides the example, type, and min/max constraints. The description adds no additional format or constraint detail beyond repeating that one or more stocks can be added.
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 ('Add') and resource ('stocks to the user's watchlist') and explicitly scopes support for one or more symbols. It distinguishes the tool from portfolio-oriented siblings by naming the watchlist as the target.
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?
It provides concrete use cases mapping user utterances to single and bulk adds, including the workflow of looking up symbols first. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as remove_from_watchlist or add_portfolio_stocks.
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.