Index of 55,000+ licensed Monexus articles (paid, $0.002/req or pass).
Args:
category: optional category filter.
limit: max articles to return.
before: pagination cursor, return articles published before this timestamp/id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.002/req or pass), pagination via the 'before' cursor, and optional filters. However, it does not describe default ordering, return format, authentication requirements, error behavior, or other operational nuances. This is more informative than a bare description but still lacks significant behavioral depth.
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 very concise: a single lead sentence plus three short parameter definitions. No wasted words. The most important info (licensed articles, cost) appears first. The parameter list is structured and easy to scan.
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 tool is relatively simple (list with filters and pagination), and the description covers the basic filters and pagination. But with no output schema, it does not describe the shape of returned articles or how ordering works by default. It also omits any info on error handling or rate limits. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not fully 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain all three: category (filter), limit (max count), before (pagination cursor with published-before semantics). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names, types, defaults. However, the explanations are minimal and do not include examples or constraints like maximum limit values.
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 identifies the tool as an index of 55,000+ licensed Monexus articles, which matches the 'list' function implied by the name. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_article (single article) and search_wire (search), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_wire or get_article. It implies usage through the list/filter/pagination context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over browsing categories or searching. The cost/availability note hints at licensing constraints but no clear if-then usage rules.
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.
Tools are grouped by domain (funding, deals, transcripts, etc.) and each has a specific focus: basic list, latest, search, or summary. While some pairs like deals/deals_search and funding/funding_latest could be confused, the descriptions clearly differentiate them. The boundaries are mostly clear, but the sheer number of tools requires careful reading.
Naming is inconsistent across the set. Some tools use bare nouns (funding, deals, catalogues), some use verb prefixes (get_article, list_threads, search_wire), and many use suffixes (_latest, _search, _summary). The position and style of modifiers vary between domains, making it difficult to predict tool names.
With 27 tools, the server is on the heavy end, which aligns with its terminal-style scope covering many distinct data domains (news, transcripts, funding, retail, model watch). The count is justified by the breadth, but it feels dense and could be split into smaller, more focused servers.
The server provides comprehensive coverage for most domains: listing, retrieving details, searching, and domain-specific variants (latest, hot, sentiment). Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a specific funding event by ID or a latest deals tool, but these are easy workarounds.