Create a persistent named watchlist for a trading account using comma-separated symbols. Group symbols under a custom name for repeated use and monitoring.
Create a persistent named watchlist with comma-separated symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| agent | No | mcp | |
| account | Yes | ||
| symbols | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions persistence but omits side effects, idempotency (despite having an idempotency_key parameter), required account details, and failure behavior. Minimal context beyond the obvious create action.
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?
A single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. Every word (persistent, named, comma-separated symbols) adds meaningful information.
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 create tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks context on required account, idempotency behavior, and handling of existing watchlists, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies the 'symbols' parameter (comma-separated) and that the watchlist is named, but leaves account, agent, and idempotency_key unexplained. Incomplete compensation for missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the action (create), the resource (persistent named watchlist), and the input format (comma-separated symbols). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like watchlist_add, watchlist_remove, and watchlist_delete.
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 implies usage for creating a new watchlist but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.