Create, update, delete, or retrieve a safely persisted stock watchlist to track symbols.
Create, update, delete, or retrieve a safely persisted watchlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Safe persistence name | |
| action | Yes | Watchlist action | |
| symbols | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does state that the watchlist is safely persisted and includes destructive delete operations, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what 'safely persisted' actually means, whether operations are reversible, or whether any authentication or permissions are required.
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 that directly communicates the tool's scope with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool, despite some slight vagueness in 'safely persisted.'
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?
The description and output schema cover basic invocation but leave important semantics unstated. In particular, it is unclear how 'update' behaves relative to 'create' and 'delete' (replace, overwrite, or mutate), what the preconditions are for each action, and what 'safely persisted' implies for cleanup or consistency.
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 input schema already describes two of three parameters with meaningful details (action enum and name pattern), though symbols is more generic. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at 67% schema description coverage but does not exceed the baseline.
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 names the tool's purpose with specific actions (create, update, delete, retrieve) and the resource being acted on (a persisted watchlist). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_stock_screen and get_stock_news, which are not watchlist management operations.
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 the tool (whenever the agent needs to manage a watchlist) but does not explicitly articulate when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling tools. It provides no direct comparison or exclusion guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.