Remove a specific asset from a watchlist using its symbol and watchlist ID to manage your Alpaca trading portfolio.
Remove an asset by symbol from a specific watchlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | symbol name to remove from the watchlist content | |
| watchlist_id | Yes | Watchlist ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the removal action without revealing side effects such as whether the removal is permanent or what happens if the asset is not found. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object while omitting unnecessary details, making it highly efficient.
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 tool is simple with 2 well-documented parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about the effect of removal (e.g., permanence) and does not distinguish itself from deleting an entire watchlist. The description is minimally adequate but not fully complete for a mutation operation.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for symbol and watchlist_id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by symbol' and 'specific watchlist', which aligns with the schema but does not enhance understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 'Remove an asset by symbol from a specific watchlist' clearly identifies the action (remove), the resource (asset from watchlist), and the required identifiers (symbol, watchlist). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_asset_to_watchlist_by_id and delete_watchlist_by_id.
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 description implies usage through its clear action, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention is made of when not to use it (e.g., for removing an entire watchlist) or any prerequisites like requiring an existing watchlist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.