Remove a symbol from a watchlist to keep your tracked assets current. Specify account, watchlist, and symbol to update persistent market monitoring without manual edits.
Remove a symbol from a persistent watchlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | mcp | |
| symbol | Yes | ||
| account | Yes | ||
| watchlist | Yes | ||
| 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 present, the description must convey behavioral consequences, but it only states 'remove' without discussing side effects, error handling, or idempotency. The presence of an idempotency_key parameter suggests retry semantics that are not addressed, leaving the agent to guess about the tool's behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for a mutation tool with five parameters and no annotations. It does not explain prerequisites, failure modes, or idempotency behavior, and it doesn't differentiate from closely related watchlist operations, making it incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.
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%, and the description only mentions symbol and watchlist, omitting the required 'account' parameter and the optional 'idempotency_key' and 'agent'. It adds minimal meaning over the parameter names, failing to clarify how account or idempotency_key affect the operation.
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 (remove), the target (symbol), and the context (persistent watchlist), distinguishing it from sibling tools like watchlist_add and watchlist_delete. The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous.
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 removing symbols from a watchlist but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as watchlist_add or watchlist_delete. Sibling tool names suggest distinctions, but the description does not articulate them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.