watchlistRecent StockTwits messages for all tickers in a specific watchlist (by watchlist_id). Supports since/max cursor pagination and a limit cap. Use to track social chatter across a curated list of symbols in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| watchlist_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds pagination support (since/max cursor) and a limit cap, which are useful but does not discuss edge cases like missing watchlist or rate limits.
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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key features. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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 does not mention the return format (e.g., list of messages with fields). While annotations provide safety context, the lack of output details leaves the agent guessing about the data shape, which is a moderate gap.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains that 'since' and 'max' are for cursor pagination and 'limit' is a cap, providing meaning for these parameters. However, it does not detail each parameter's format or behavior, 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 fetches recent StockTwits messages for a specific watchlist, using a verb 'track' and specifying the resource 'messages for all tickers in a watchlist'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'symbol_stream' by emphasizing aggregation across multiple symbols in one call.
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 suggests using it to 'track social chatter across a curated list of symbols', providing a usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'symbol_stream' or 'trending_messages', leaving some guidance gaps.
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.