Delete a funding-signal alert and its delivery history to remove outdated watchlist notifications. Submit the watchlist UUID to clear alerts and delivery records.
Delete a funding-signal alert and its delivery history. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The watchlist id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description usefully discloses that deletion also removes delivery history (a real data-loss scope beyond a bare 'delete') and that the call costs nothing. However, this disclosure conflicts with the destructiveHint=false annotation, which would lead an agent to under-warn the user about irreversible data loss. The description is more truthful than the annotation, but the inconsistency is a behavioral gap an agent should be shielded from.
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?
One front-loaded sentence stating the action and its destructive scope, plus a terse cost fact ('Free.'). Every word 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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the essentials (what is deleted, cost) are present, but the description omits whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens on an unknown/already-deleted id, and any auth prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 100% and the sole 'id' parameter is fully documented (UUID format/pattern and description) in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the id, so the schema carries the full load — baseline 3.
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 (Delete) and resource (a funding-signal alert / watchlist entry) plus the scope of deletion (its delivery history). An agent can distinguish this from watchlist_get or watchlist_list, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as watchlist_get or watchlist_deliveries, and no prerequisites, confirmation expectations, or reversibility notes. Only the bare action is described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.