atlas7_portfolio_watchlistSubscription-gated saved watchlist analysis. MVP accepts ticker or CIK filters until watchlist persistence is enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Issuer CIK when ticker is not supplied. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. | |
| ticker | No | Issuer ticker, for example IREN. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context: 'subscription-gated' reveals an access requirement, and 'MVO accepts ticker or CIK filters until watchlist persistence is enabled' discloses the tool's temporary/future behavior. This exceeds what annotations alone convey, 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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first is a compact noun phrase, the second effectively communicates the current limitation. It is concise and well-structured, though the purpose could be more action-oriented.
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 description does not explain what 'watchlist analysis' actually produces, what criteria are analyzed, or how the saved watchlist relates to the ticker/CIK filters. With an output schema present return shape is defined, but core behavioral context is missing. The sibling set includes many similar analysis tools, so this ambiguity makes it hard to know when to invoke.
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 descriptions are complete (100% coverage), explaining cik, ticker, and limit. The description only reiterates 'ticker or CIK filters' without adding new syntax, mutual exclusivity rules, or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a noun phrase 'Subscription-gated saved watchlist analysis' rather than a clear verb, making the action ambiguous. It mentions ticker/CIK filters but not what the tool does with them. It distinguishes itself from siblings via 'saved watchlist' and 'subscription-gated' but lacks an explicit operation like 'list' or 'analyze'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The MVO note about filters implies current usage (pass a ticker or CIK) but doesn't state when this is better than quick_ticker_check or issuer_signal, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.