Turn any ticker list into a ranked watchlist by WhaleSignal conviction score, with highest conviction first. Prioritize high-scoring tickers for focused review.
Rank a watchlist of tickers by WhaleSignal conviction score (highest first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| tickers | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the essential behavior: ranking and sorting by conviction score highest first. With no annotations, the description does not mention how invalid tickers are handled, whether 'top' affects the result set, or any other operational caveats, though the output schema covers the return shape.
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, and the key ordering behavior is front-loaded. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.
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 description is adequate for a simple two-parameter ranking tool, especially with an output schema present, but it leaves the agent to infer the meaning and impact of the optional 'top' parameter and to distinguish usage from conviction_score without explicit guidance.
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 0%, so the description carries the parameter semantics burden. 'tickers' is partially explained by the phrase 'watchlist of tickers,' but the 'top' parameter is not explained at all and its behavior is left entirely to the schema.
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 states a specific action and resource: rank a watchlist of tickers by WhaleSignal conviction score, with an explicit ordering (highest first). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like conviction_score, which implies a single-score lookup rather than batch ranking.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as conviction_score, flow_alerts, or market_pulse. The agent must infer the intended use from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.