tw-market-data

Delete a price alert

delete_alert

Destructive

Cancel one armed price trigger permanently, by its rule id.

    Disarms a single watch so it will not fire again — the opposite of `set_price_alert`,
    and unlike `list_alerts` it changes state rather than reporting it. Cancellation is
    irreversible: re-arming means creating a fresh trigger. Naming somebody else's rule id
    cancels nothing at all. Args: rule_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rule_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`rule`	No
`error`	No
`reason`	No
`blocked`	No
`deleted`	No
`rule_id`	No
`delivery`	No
`not_investment_advice`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly states cancellation is irreversible, re-arming requires creating a fresh trigger, and invalid ownership results in no action. This significantly enriches the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence conveys the core action, identifier, and permanence. Following sentences add necessary distinctions (opposite of set_price_alert, state-change vs list_alerts, irreversibility, ownership) without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and explicit annotations, the description covers all critical context: what it deletes, how it identifies the target, that it is irreversible, and that ownership is enforced. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that rule_id identifies the trigger and that ownership matters ('Naming somebody else's rule id cancels nothing at all'). It could add more detail about the id format, but for a single simple string parameter this is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Cancel'), a resource ('one armed price trigger'), and the identifier used ('rule id'). It also explicitly contrasts itself with set_price_alert and list_alerts, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly positions the tool as the opposite of set_price_alert and notes that unlike list_alerts it changes state rather than reporting it. It also warns that naming someone else's rule id cancels nothing, which gives agents a concrete when-not-to-use condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All tw-market-data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are largely distinct: querying, searching, backtesting, risk reads, alerts, memory, and audit functions each have clear homes. A few adjacent pairs (risk_read vs risk_assess, company_health_check vs positioning_read) could be confused, but the descriptions draw explicit boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are strong consistent clusters like list_*, get_*, run_*, and memory_*, but the *_read suffix alternates with noun-first names like company_health_check, and bare-verb tools like ask, calendar, chart, and screen break the pattern. The naming is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is well past the 25+ threshold and makes the surface heavy for an agent to navigate, even though the breadth reflects a genuinely wide platform. Several clusters could plausibly be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the main lifecycle well: discovery, point-in-time querying, filings search and full text, backtesting, research, risk assessment, alerts, memory, approvals, and provenance verification. Minor gaps exist—no strategy management tools, no memory deletion, no bulk export—but agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?