Retrieve all stocks in your watchlist to monitor real-time market positions across A-shares, Hong Kong, and US markets.
获取所有观察股票
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "watch_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the data comes in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient Chinese phrase that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and gets straight to the point with zero structural overhead.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise for a parameterless read operation, it doesn't address authentication requirements, return format, pagination, error conditions, or differentiation from similar tools like position_list. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on the action being performed without unnecessary parameter details. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
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 '获取所有观察股票' (Get all watchlist stocks) clearly states the verb (get) and resource (watchlist stocks), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like watch_get (get specific watch item) and watch_add/remove/update (mutations), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the text itself.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like watch_get (for specific items) and position_list (for positions), there's no indication of when this bulk retrieval is appropriate versus more targeted queries, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.