USERDATA

remove_from_list

Remove a ticker from a named list while preserving its historical record. Update watchlists without losing evidence the ticker was previously included.

Instructions

Takes a ticker off a list; the history keeps that it was there.

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>",
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes
`list_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one real trait beyond the schema, that removal preserves history rather than erasing the record, which is genuinely useful. However, it is silent on what happens when the ticker is not on the list (error vs. silent no-op), whether the operation is idempotent, and any permission requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the side effect appended. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (two required parameters) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a mutation with zero annotation coverage, the description should say more about failure modes and idempotency than the one clause about history.

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%, so both required parameters (ticker, list_name) are undocumented in structured data. The description implies "ticker" and "a list" but adds no meaning about list_name resolution (existing lists only? exact match? case sensitivity?) or ticker format. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

"Takes a ticker off a list" states a specific verb and resource, and the phrasing cleanly separates it from add_to_list and create_list without needing to name them. It stops short of explicitly orienting against siblings, but an agent can tell what it does at a glance.

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?

Usage is only implied: if you need a ticker gone from an existing list, this is the tool. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of prerequisites (does the list need to exist?), and no mention of alternatives such as add_to_list for the inverse operation.

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