FREE - the FIXTURE reference digest generated from the pinned corpus release-pairs: illustrative fixture values, NOT source data, unsigned.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "trending_digest_sample"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits beyond the name: zero cost ('FREE'), data provenance (fixture values, not source data), and lack of signing/attestation ('unsigned'). It doesn't describe the shape or size of what comes back, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
A single sentence front-loads the most decision-relevant token ('FREE') and packs cost, provenance, and signature status into one clause with no padding. Density is high but nothing is redundant.
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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers provenance and cost but never says what a 'digest' actually contains (headline items, scores, timestamps?), so the agent cannot anticipate the response payload. It is minimally adequate for a low-stakes fixture tool but not complete.
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?
There are zero input parameters and 100% schema coverage, so no parameter explanation is required; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.
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 identifies this as the fixture/sample variant of the trending digest, explicitly marked 'illustrative fixture values, NOT source data' and 'unsigned', which separates it from the live siblings trending_digest_get and trending_digest_request. It loses a point because 'generated from the pinned corpus release-pairs' is internal jargon that doesn't tell an agent concretely what the tool returns.
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 leading 'FREE' plus 'NOT source data' implies this is a zero-cost demo/test call rather than something to use for real analysis, which is useful routing guidance. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, so the agent must infer the when-to-use condition.
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.