List events where reporting diverges across sources (the signature Conflict Watch). Each item includes a plain-language note on what differs and the source links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | occurred_at >= (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output content (plain-language note and source links) which adds useful context, but does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits.
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, no redundant words. First sentence states purpose with a distinctive name, second sentence details output. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 covers output format (note and source links) but lacks information about pagination, ordering, or result set size implications. With no output schema, more detail on the return structure would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 50% with only 'since' having a description. The description does not add meaning to 'limit' beyond its schema constraints (default, min, max). It does not explain how parameters affect results, leaving gaps.
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 'List' and the resource 'events where reporting diverges across sources', which is a specific subset of events. It distinguishes the tool from siblings 'get_event' (single event) and 'search_events' (general search) by focusing on conflicts.
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 by explicitly mentioning it is the signature 'Conflict Watch' tool for listing conflicting reports. However, it does not include explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the sibling names imply the use cases.
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 targets a distinct operation: get_event for single retrieval, list_conflicts for divergence detection, and search_events for full-text search. No overlaps.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with lowercase underscores (get_event, list_conflicts, search_events), consistent throughout.
With 3 tools, the server covers the core functionalities for a read-only news event service: lookup, search, and special conflict listing. It's well-scoped for its purpose.
The tool surface is complete for the stated domain: retrieving specific events, searching across events, and identifying reporting conflicts. No obvious gaps given the read-only nature.
