get_briefToday's read on markets. kind='market' is the signal-derived pulse; kind='editorial' is the brief the desk authored — regime, themes, risks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | market | |
| scope | No | retail |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"get_briefOutput"New value: +"get_briefDictOutput"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds modest context about the data sources for each kind (signal-derived vs. desk-authored) but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses a semicolon to neatly separate the two kinds. No filler or redundant wording.
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 the presence of a nearly identical sibling (get_today_brief) and the unexplained 'scope' parameter, the description is incomplete. It offers no differentiation from similar tools and no explanation of the second parameter, limiting an agent's ability to use it correctly in context.
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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'kind' parameter (only two values, market and editorial) but completely omits the 'scope' parameter, leaving its meaning and allowed values undocumented. This is a significant gap.
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 'Today's read on markets' and elaborates on the two kinds, giving a specific resource and purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_today_brief, which appears to be a near-duplicate, leaving some ambiguity.
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 explains what each kind produces but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_market_data or get_today_brief. There are no explicit usage scenarios or exclusions, so agents must infer applicability.
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.