preview_watchlistEvaluate 1 to 25 tickers against trusted 13F flow, quality gates and explainable watch/monitor/block triggers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | Yes | ||
| movement_limit | 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the evaluation criteria (13F flow, quality gates, triggers), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. It could be slightly improved by breaking into smaller parts for readability, but it effectively communicates the core purpose.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a read-only evaluation tool. It covers the main purpose and key input dimension (number of tickers), though missing parameter details for 'movement_limit' and 'include_quality_details' slightly reduces 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description only explains the 'tickers' parameter implicitly via 'Evaluate 1 to 25 tickers'. The other parameters ('movement_limit', 'include_quality_details') are not mentioned, leaving their purpose unclear despite default values and constraints in the schema.
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 the verb 'Evaluate' and the resource '1 to 25 tickers', specifying the evaluation context 'against trusted 13F flow, quality gates and explainable watch/monitor/block triggers'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_watchlist and get_stock.
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 indicates when to use: when evaluating tickers against specific criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, though the context of 12 sibling tools provides implicit guidance.
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.