Remove an instrument from one of your Stock Trackers. This will remove the instrument from your stock tracker. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Ticker symbol to remove (e.g. AAPL). | |
| watchlist | Yes | Name of the Stock Tracker the ticker is in, or its id. | |
| asset_type | No | Optional: helps disambiguate if the same ticker exists in multiple asset types. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that the action 'cannot be undone,' which provides concrete irreversibility context. It also clarifies the scope ('one of your Stock Trackers'), adding ownership/authorization context beyond the annotations.
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 brief but contains redundancy: 'This will remove the instrument from your stock tracker' simply restates the first sentence. The last sentence about irreversibility is valuable. A more concise version would drop the redundant middle sentence.
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 removal operation with high schema coverage and destructive annotations, the description is mostly complete. It states the action, irreversibility, and ownership scope. The only minor gap is no mention of what happens if the instrument is not found, but this is not essential for a basic removal tool.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description does not add additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the action: removing an instrument from a Stock Tracker. The verb 'remove' plus the resource 'instrument from one of your Stock Trackers' is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_to_watchlist or delete_watchlist.
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 implies usage: to remove an instrument from a watchlist. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using delete_watchlist for removing entire trackers or noting this only affects user-created trackers. There is no when-not-to-use guidance beyond the ownership implication.
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.
With 57 tools, most have distinct purposes (market data, journaling, watchlists). A few related tools (get_price_alignment vs get_crypto_price_alignment, get_market_pulse vs get_market_movers) could cause miselection, but descriptions clarify asset types and scope.
Tools predominantly use get_/list_/create_/update_/delete_ verbs with clear noun suffixes. Minor deviations like start_here, whoami, add_to_watchlist, and remove_from_watchlist break the pure verb_noun pattern, but the style is consistent and readable.
At 57 tools, the server is far beyond the well-scoped range. While the domain is broad, this many tools will overwhelm an agent's capability to select accurately, and many could be consolidated (e.g., separate financial statements).
The server covers watchlist CRUD, trading journaling, market data (fundamentals, statements, news, transcripts), analysis tools, and community features. No obvious dead ends; lifecycle coverage is thorough for the described domain.
