avanza_scalp_watchlist_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and prerequisites. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether current quotes require an active Avanza live session, or what happens on failure; 'load' is the only signal that it is non-mutating.

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 with no filler; every phrase adds information about the operation or its optional behavior. This is appropriately concise for a two-parameter retrieval tool.

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 covers the core load-and-maybe-quotes behavior and is adequate for a simple getter, but with no output schema or annotations it leaves the return shape, prerequisite session/auth state, and failure semantics unstated. An agent can select the tool but may not know exactly what to expect from the response.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description at least maps watchlist_id to a named scalp watchlist and include_quotes to returning current quotes, which adds meaning beyond the bare type names. However, it gives no details on watchlist_id format/source or the precise behavior/limitations of the quotes inclusion.

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 names a concrete resource ('a named scalp watchlist'), a specific action ('load'), and the optional behavior of including quotes for all members. This makes it easy to tell apart from the sibling avanza_scalp_watchlist_set and from generic quote tools.

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 phrase 'optionally include current quotes' gives some context for deciding on include_quotes, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The get/set sibling relationship is only implicit, so the agent must infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.