Retrieve all thought cards for a specific stock ticker to review saved investment notes and behavioral insights in one place.
Get all thought cards for a specific ticker/symbol.
Args:
ticker: Stock ticker (e.g., "贵州茅台", "AAPL")
Returns:
list: All thought cards for this ticker
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether archived/stale cards are included, or what happens when the ticker has no cards (empty list vs error).
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?
Very short and front-loaded: the core behavior is in the first sentence, followed by docstring-style Args/Returns blocks. No filler, though the Args block largely restates the single parameter name.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description at least names the return shape ('list: all thought cards for this ticker'). Still missing are the return fields, ordering, and empty-result behavior, which an agent would need to use the output correctly.
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 schema alone gives no meaning for 'ticker'. The description partially compensates by giving concrete example values in both Chinese and English ('贵州茅台', 'AAPL'), clarifying that local symbols are accepted, but it does not explain ticker normalization or whether exchange suffixes are required.
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 and resource ('Get all thought cards') and scopes it to a single ticker/symbol, which is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like thought_search_memories or thought_record_thought, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative despite several related thought/memory tools in the sibling list. The agent is left to guess whether this is for retrieval by symbol only or overlaps with memory search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.