List all watchlists with their scan targets, intervals, and priority levels to review and verify your market monitoring setup.
Show configured watchlists: what is scanned, how often, and priority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Show' conveys a read-only, non-mutating operationabb, and the listed fields communicate the substance of what the agent will receive. More detail on staleness or data source would be nice, but the description is sufficient for a simple read-only list tool.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the operation and the three key output facets with no filler. Every element of the description 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 zero-parameter list operation with an output schema present, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what aspects of the watchlists will be shown, so no additional context is needed for reliable selection and invocation.
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, which receives a baseline of 4. The description adds relevant semantic color by explaining what the returned watchlist data will contain, even though no parameter documentation is needed.
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 specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resource ('configured watchlists'), then adds the meaningful output dimensions: scan targets, frequency, and priority. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other entities like market status, prices, or stash items.
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 makes the selection context clear: use this tool when you need to see configured watchlists and their scanning behavior. It does not name alternative tools, but with zero parameters and no sibling tool covering watchlists, explicit disambiguation is not necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.