Creates a user account with the given email, sends a verification email, and returns an API token. Unverified users are limited to 30 queries/month; verified users can make 300/month for free. Drop us an email to tell us how you found the service and if you want more queries (see website footer)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | User email address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently reveals that the tool creates an account, sends a verification email, returns a token, and imposes rate limits (30/month unverified, 300/month verified). It also mentions how to request more queries, which adds useful context beyond the bare 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds important limitations and a user note. There is no redundant information or unnecessary length.
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?
This is a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description explains the full flow (account creation, verification email, token return, rate limits) and is sufficient for an agent to understand the behavior. The sibling tools are all list operations, so this tool's purpose is unambiguous.
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 covers 100% of the parameter descriptions with a 'User email address' and the format 'email'. The description merely references 'the given email' without adding additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'creates' with the resource 'user account', and also mentions sending a verification email and returning an API token. This specific behavior distinguishes it from the sibling list tools, which are all about querying data.
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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for registration and obtaining an API key) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tools are clearly different, so the usage context is sufficient without needing explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: location_groups_list provides reference data for location groups, register_and_get_key_create handles user authentication, and the two stories endpoints filter by different primary criteria (industry/location vs organization). The descriptions and required parameters make it easy to choose the right tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Two end with '_list' but one is a multi-action verb phrase ('register_and_get_key_create'), and the stories endpoints mix descriptor order. This inconsistent naming could confuse agents trying to predict similar tool names.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a focused news API, covering authentication, location reference, and two primary story query paths. It avoids bloat while providing essential functionality.
The server covers story retrieval by industry/location and organization, but lacks a general story listing, an industry enumeration endpoint, or a way to fetch a single story by ID. These gaps may require agents to use workarounds or incomplete data.