Creates a new watchlist with specified asset symbols to organize and track stocks like AAPL and TSLA for easier market monitoring.
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.
v2.4.0Input schema / properties / name / exampleAdded value: +"Tech Stocks"Input schema / properties / symbols / exampleAdded value: +[
+ "AAPL",
+ "TSLA"
+]Input schema / properties / symbols / items / typePrevious value: -[
- "string",
- "null"
-]New value: +"string"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 carries the full burden. It omits auth/permission requirements, whether duplicate watchlist names are rejected, any cap on the number of watchlists, and whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of missing guidance rather than being a model of tightness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the two params are well covered by the schema. However, for a write tool with no annotations it should say more about failure modes or limits; it is adequate but incomplete.
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%, so both parameters (name, symbols) are already documented with examples. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies; the phrase 'specified symbols' arguably implies symbols is required when it is optional, which is mild but not harmful.
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 (creates) and resource (watchlist) with the included symbols, which is enough to distinguish it from read siblings like get_watchlists and mutation siblings like update_watchlist_by_id. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_watchlist_by_id, add_asset_to_watchlist_by_id, or delete_watchlist_by_id, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.