list_watchlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the API key requirement and the enrichment of results, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination, error behavior, or whether results are sorted. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and enrichment details, while the second sentence efficiently notes the authentication requirement. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, for whom, and what the response contains. It also notes the API key requirement. It lacks details like pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for a simple list endpoint with no input parameters.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds context by explaining what the list contains and that it is for the authenticated user, which indirectly clarifies the implicit parameter (the API key). Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('watchlist items'), scoped to the authenticated user. It also specifies the enriched data (ticker data, signal stage, AI score, performance metrics), making it distinct from sibling tools like add_to_watchlist or get_ticker.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the authenticated user's watchlist with enriched data. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_tickers for broader searches or get_ticker for individual tickers.

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