List all custom watchlists with IDs, names, and symbol counts. Use to resolve the correct watchlist by ID before scanning.
List every custom watchlist on the account with its id, name and symbol count. Use this before scanning: watchlist_get answers "whatever is active", which can name a different list than the panel is showing. Names are not unique, so resolve by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's scope (all custom watchlists on the account), its output fields, and a notable behavioral caveat about non-unique names. While it doesn't discuss side effects or errors, 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and the caveat adds meaningful behavioral context.
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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds actionable usage guidance and a crucial resolution hint. 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?
For a parameterless list tool, the description is complete: it defines the output fields, provides when-to-use context, and warns about the key pitfall with non-unique names. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently covers return values.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequately handled; the description focuses on output rather than inputs.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('every custom watchlist on the account'), and the exact output fields ('id, name and symbol count'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like watchlist_get and watchlist_get_by_id.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this before scanning'. It also contrasts with watchlist_get, explaining the active-list ambiguity and directing the agent to resolve by id because names are not unique. This is strong routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.