Get a free preview of the 5 most recent US regulatory changes monitored by ForgePoint Signal. Covers estate, trust, gift, and inheritance tax law. Updated daily from the Federal Register and IRS Internal Revenue Bulletin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data scope, update frequency, and sources, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the preview is read-only (though implied), any rate limits, or the output structure. Given the simple nature, this is adequate but not rich.
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 action, and every word adds value. No unnecessary repetition.
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-param, simple preview tool, the description covers the essential aspects: data scope, recency, update frequency, and sources. However, it could briefly mention that the preview is a list and how it differs from the sibling tools. Still, given the simplicity, it's mostly 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?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description adds context about what the preview returns, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 tool's function: retrieving a preview of the 5 most recent US regulatory changes. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource is well-defined (US regulatory changes in estate, trust, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by the preview nature and limited count.
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 implies usage for a quick, free overview of recent changes but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like get_regulation_detail or search_regulations. There are no exclusions or alternative 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.
get_recent_by_impact and preview_regulations both return recent regulatory changes, potentially confusing an agent selecting between them. The other tools are clearly distinct: search_regulations for filtered queries and get_regulation_detail for specifics.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_regulation_detail, preview_regulations, search_regulations). get_recent_by_impact deviates slightly with its qualifier, but the verb-led naming remains predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only regulatory signal service, covering discovery, search, and detail without unnecessary bloat.
The domain is regulatory lookup, and the set covers searching, listing recent items, and retrieving full details. Missing CRUD is appropriate for a read-only service, so no gaps.