pro_watchlist_listList the organization's watchlists (real-time alerts). Watchlists de l'organisation : alertes temps réel (~10 min) par email, Discord ou webhook JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the nature of watchlists (real-time alerts with ~10 min delay, delivery via email/Discord/webhook). This is useful context beyond the structured annotations, with no contradictions.
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 concise, using two short sentences. However, the French sentence partially repeats the English sentence ('Watchlists de l'organisation' = 'the organization's watchlists'), which is slightly redundant though not overly wasteful.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what watchlists are and the listing operation, but it does not specify what the response will contain or any edge cases (e.g., empty list). Given the lack of an output schema, more return-value detail would improve completeness.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema covers everything. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'the organization's watchlists' and adds clarifying context '(real-time alerts)'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like pro_watchlist_create and pro_watchlist_delete, which handle different operations.
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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling tool names imply a set of watchlist operations, but the description itself does not mention exclusions or alternatives.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, with slight overlap between pro_search and search_used_cars, but descriptions differentiate based on professional features and deal scores. Pro_deals and pro_search also have different purposes.
All tool names use snake_case with a consistent pattern: descriptive nouns for consumer tools (car_market_stats, estimate_car_price, search_used_cars) and pro_ prefix for professional tools (pro_search, pro_deals, pro_watchlist_create). No mixing of conventions.
10 tools is well-scoped for a car market API covering both consumer and professional needs. It is not too few or too many, and each tool serves a clear purpose.
The tool set covers core operations: market stats, price estimation, search, deals, watchlists, and usage. Missing a dedicated tool to retrieve full details of a single listing by ID, but agents can work around using search results.