discover_watchlistRank trusted 13F watchlist candidates with explicit filters. Scores are ordinal research screens, not forecasts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| moves | No | ||
| actions | No | ||
| min_score | No | ||
| min_buyers | No | ||
| min_holders | No | ||
| movement_limit | No | ||
| exclude_mega_cap | No | ||
| max_13f_value_usd | No | ||
| include_quality_details | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds value by revealing that scores are ordinal screens, not forecasts, which informs agent expectations beyond the safe-read hints.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the purpose and adds a critical caveat, making it efficient 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?
Covers core purpose and output interpretation, and the output schema exists. However, the tool has 10 parameters with no details in the description, and the screening context is vague, leaving gaps for a complex 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'explicit filters' generically. It provides no individual parameter roles, allowed values, or constraints, leaving the agent with 10 undocumented parameters.
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 it ranks watchlist candidates with explicit filters, and clarifies that scores are ordinal research screens. It distinguishes the tool's purpose but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'preview_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?
Implies usage for filtering and ranking watchlist candidates, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'preview_watchlist', or conditions to avoid.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between get_confluence_signals and get_signal_history (both dealing with signals) and between get_fund and get_stock (both about holdings). Descriptions help clarify, but minor overlap remains.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_fund, list_funds, preview_watchlist) and use snake_case throughout, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of 13F filings and research. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool set covers key operations like listing funds, getting holdings, signal history, and quality warnings. However, it lacks a tool for searching tickers or funds by name, which could be a minor gap for some use cases.