USERDATA

create_list

Creates a named watchlist or peer group with a purpose, optionally under a project, to organize securities for research tracking and comparison.

Instructions

Creates a list; list_type is "watchlist" or "peer_group".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "list_name": "<list_name>",
      "list_type": "<list_type>",
      "purpose_text": "<purpose_text>"
    },
    "name": "create_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`list_name`	Yes
`list_type`	Yes
`project_id`	No
`purpose_text`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 disclosure. It says nothing about permissions, whether the list is scoped to a project when project_id is omitted, or what happens to purpose_text; for a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but this brevity comes at the cost of substance: the agent gets the verb and list_type vocabulary, and nothing more.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 parameters, 3 of them required, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description omits too much about inputs and effects to be complete for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does add value by stating the list_type vocabulary, since the schema has no enum for it, but it says nothing about list_name, purpose_text (required but of unclear format or intent), or project_id (nullable and optional).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates a list") and narrows the kind of list with the valid list_type values. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling add_to_list, which creates the risk of confusing list creation with adding items to an existing list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The list_type values imply the two situations in which this tool is used (a watchlist versus a peer group), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as add_to_list or start_project, and no conditions or exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.