Retrieve a funding-signal watchlist by ID to view its name, filters, webhook URL, active status, and pause reason. Free read-only lookup.
One funding-signal alert: its name, filters, webhook URL, whether it is active and why it was paused (never its secret). 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful disclosures beyond them: the secret is never returned, and the call is free (relevant given account_balance and pricing_get siblings). It does not describe error or pause-state edge behavior.
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 dense sentence with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the field list follows. Slightly clipped telegraphic style ('Free.') but every fragment carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and explicitly excludes the secret, which is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around failure modes for invalid or missing ids.
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 there is a single parameter documented as 'The watchlist id.', so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about id format or lookup semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 resource and scope: a single funding-signal alert, with the fields returned enumerated (name, filters, webhook URL, active/paused status). The singular 'One' implicitly separates it from the sibling watchlist_list, though no sibling is named outright.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'One' – the agent can infer this is the single-item lookup versus watchlist_list, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the required id semantics beyond the schema, and no guidance on behavior for a nonexistent or deleted id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.