Retrieve a user's watchlist from GDEX Trading using a connected account, so AI agents can track favorite tokens and monitor market moves without exposing secrets in chat.
Fetch the user's watchlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| accountRef | No | Connected account from gdex_connect. Supplies session key, wallet address, API key and session data so no secret is passed in chat |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.0Input schema / properties / accountRefAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Connected account from gdex_connect. Supplies session key, wallet address, API key and session data so no secret is passed in chat",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "userId"
-]v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether authentication is required, what the watchlist contains, or whether results are paginated. It merely restates the read action.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though its terseness contributes to gaps covered in other dimensions.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the opaque `data` parameter and the authentication role of `accountRef`. It provides none of that, nor does it describe what the returned watchlist includes. The annotations help with safety, but the description is not complete enough to invoke the tool confidently.
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 description coverage is only 33%, with `data` and `userId` undocumented and only `accountRef` described. The description does not compensate by explaining `data`, `userId`, or how `accountRef` supplies session credentials, apart from the weak implication of "user's" watchlist. It adds almost no parameter meaning beyond the schema itself.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: "Fetch" the "watchlist." It is clearly a read operation and is distinguishable from the sibling `change_watchlist` by verb. It does not explicitly mention that it is user-scoped beyond the possessive "user's," but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as being connected via `gdex_connect`. It only states what the tool does, leaving all usage decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.