Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MaverickMCP

MaverickMCP

by wshobson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

watchlist_brief

Generate a scored intelligence brief for each symbol on a watchlist, including active signal count, upcoming catalyst flags, and days on watchlist, sorted by signal strength.

Instructions

Generate a scored intelligence brief for every symbol on a watchlist. Each entry includes: active signal count, upcoming catalyst flag (within 30 days), days on watchlist, and notes. Results are sorted by active signals descending.

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": {
      "watchlist_id": "<watchlist_id>"
    },
    "name": "watchlist_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
watchlist_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes output format and sorting, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. The read-only nature is inferred but not explicit.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's output and sorting.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple tool (one parameter), the description provides adequate context about output content. However, it omits necessary preconditions like the watchlist must exist, and does not mention error handling or edge cases.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'watchlist_id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or explain how to obtain the watchlist ID, missing an opportunity to clarify parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a scored intelligence brief for every symbol on a watchlist.' It specifies the output fields (active signal count, catalyst flag, etc.) and sorting, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_watchlist' which likely returns raw watchlist data.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to get scored intel on a watchlist, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'get_watchlist' or other analytical tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools