Search across your own watchlists, the curated/official ones, and shared community lists by name. Returns up to 5 matches per bucket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (2-100 chars) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the search scope across three buckets and the result cap of 5 per bucket, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention ordering or bucket semantics in detail, but for a simple search tool this is sufficient given the annotation coverage.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single output constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name. Structure is ideal for quick comprehension.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey return behavior. It does so with 'Returns up to 5 matches per bucket', which is sufficient for a simple search. The term 'bucket' is not explicitly defined but is inferable from the three list categories. It lacks details about ordering or match structure, but for a single-parameter read-only search this is not a critical gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the query matches 'by name' — the schema only labels it as a 'Search query (2-100 chars)'. This clarifies the semantic target of the parameter, elevating the score to 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('watchlists'), then enumerates the exact scope: 'your own watchlists, the curated/official ones, and shared community lists.' The detail 'by name' further distinguishes it from instrument search or list retrieval tools. It also mentions a concrete output constraint ('Returns up to 5 matches per bucket'), making the purpose unmistakable.
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 clearly implies use when you want to find watchlists by name across personal, official, and community sources. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'for searching instruments use search_instruments'), but the scope and field ('by name') provide clear context that separates it from sibling watchlist tools. There is no explicit exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
