trending_symbols"What stocks are trending today" / "most talked-about tickers" / "hot stocks on social media" / "WSB / retail trending names" — top trending tickers on StockTwits by message volume right now. Use for retail-attention scans, meme-stock detection, social-momentum trading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context: data source (StockTwits), metric (message volume), and temporal aspect (right now), enhancing transparency beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two lines with no superfluous information. Every phrase adds value, and the format is clear and front-loaded.
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 has one optional parameter with no output schema. The description explains the core functionality well but omits details on the return format (e.g., fields in the response) and the behavior of the 'limit' parameter. Adequate for a simple tool but not complete.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'limit' parameter. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its purpose and default behavior completely unspecified. This is a significant gap.
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 tool returns 'top trending tickers on StockTwits by message volume right now', with explicit verb and resource. It includes alternative phrasings and use cases, distinguishing it from siblings like 'pipeworx_trending' which is from a different source.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'retail-attention scans, meme-stock detection, social-momentum trading'. While it doesn't state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to determine applicability.
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.
Multiple tools serve overlapping functions: three ask_pipeworx variants, two deep research tools, and multiple polymarket tools. StockTwits-specific tools are distinct but the overall set has significant ambiguity between Pipeworx and Polymarket tools.
Naming styles are mixed: some use lowercase (ask_pipeworx), some use underscores (ai_visibility_check), and some use prefixes (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). No consistent pattern across the tool set.
40 tools is on the higher end but not extreme. However, many tools belong to the Pipeworx ecosystem, which seems separate from StockTwits, making the set feel bloated and unfocused for a single server.
StockTwits social features are adequately covered (symbol search, streams, trending), but the inclusion of Pipeworx tools creates a sprawling surface without complete coverage in any one domain. Missing core StockTwits features like user profiles or direct messaging.