tw-market-data

Get the watchlist

memory_get_watchlist

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the tickers on one named watchlist, as it stands right now.

    A curated roster you maintain — distinct from `memory_search`, which digs through everything
    you ever recorded, and from `list_alerts`, which is about price triggers rather than symbols
    you are following. Args: key — the roster's name, default 'default'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No		default

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No
`hint`	No
`note`	No
`exists`	No
`reason`	No
`blocked`	No
`tickers`	No
`memory_id`	No
`namespace`	No
`updated_at`	No
`not_investment_advice`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds useful behavioral context: the watchlist is user-maintained and the read reflects current state, not a historical search. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the middle distinguishes from related tools, and the final note covers the parameter. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With one optional parameter, rich safety annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It explains scope, alternatives, and the key argument, leaving no critical gap.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: 'key — the roster's name, default "default"' clarifies that key identifies a named watchlist and gives the default. This is sufficient for a single simple optional parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the tickers on one named watchlist,' and adds temporal scope ('as it stands right now'). It clearly separates this tool from siblings memory_search and list_alerts, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 explicitly contrasts the tool with memory_search ('digs through everything you ever recorded') and list_alerts ('price triggers rather than symbols you are following'), giving the agent clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The default key behavior is also stated.

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?