user_streamRecent StockTwits posts from a specific user (by user_id string). Supports since/max cursor pagination and a limit cap. Returns messages with sentiment tags, timestamps, and ticker cashtags. Use to follow a particular trader's commentary stream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| user_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns messages with sentiment tags, timestamps, and ticker cashtags, and that it supports since/max cursor pagination and a limit cap, which goes beyond the annotation 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and provides necessary details (pagination, return fields) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return content (sentiment tags, timestamps, cashtags) and pagination. It covers the single required parameter and optional pagination parameters. Could briefly mention that results are ordered but is otherwise 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains that user_id identifies the user, and since/max/limit relate to pagination and capping. However, it does not explicitly define 'since' and 'max' as cursors or describe their exact semantics, leaving some ambiguity.
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 retrieves recent StockTwits posts from a specific user by user_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like symbol_stream (which likely filters by symbol) and trending_messages (which likely retrieves trending posts).
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 says 'Use to follow a particular trader's commentary stream,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list suggests related tools.
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.