Create a watchlist to track specified asset symbols. Provide a name and optional symbols to monitor in one place.
Creates a new watchlist with specified symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The watchlist name. | |
| symbols | No | List of asset symbols to include in the watchlist. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.2Input schema / properties / symbols / items / nullableRemoved value: -trueInput schema / properties / symbols / items / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only restates the basic create operation and does not disclose potential behaviors such as duplicate-name handling, validation errors, idempotency, or permissions. This is minimally informative but not misleading.
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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource while naming the relevant content, so an agent can quickly parse the tool's purpose.
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 low-complexity creation tool with a complete input schema and an available output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It identifies what to create and what can be included, while the schema covers parameter requirements and the output schema covers return structure. The main gap is the lack of guidance about edge cases, but this is a minor omission here.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both 'name' and 'symbols'. The description adds little beyond restating that symbols are included in the new watchlist, which is consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action (create), the resource (watchlist), and the key content (specified symbols). It differentiates from sibling tools like update_watchlist_by_id and delete_watchlist_by_id because 'new' signals creation rather than modification or deletion.
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 implied by the word 'new' and by the sibling set: this is the watchlist creation tool, distinct from update, delete, add-asset, and list tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users toward alternatives like add_asset_to_watchlist_by_id when modifying an existing watchlist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.