Windowed context around a transcript segment (paid, $0.005/req or pass).
Args:
episode: episode id from transcripts_search.
start: segment start time in seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | Yes | ||
| episode | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a cost of $0.005/req or pass, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain window size, return structure, or read-safety. Minimal but non-zero transparency.
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 uses two concise sentences plus a compact args list, and every sentence earns its place. The phrase 'or pass' is a bit ambiguous, but overall it is efficient with no wasted words.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the essential inputs are covered, but with no output schema and no details on what the windowed context contains, the description is somewhat incomplete. It is enough to invoke but not to anticipate results.
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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that episode comes from transcripts_search and that start is in seconds, adding units and source not present in the schema.
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 returns windowed context around a transcript segment, using episode and start time. It references transcripts_search for episode IDs, which helps distinguish it from sibling transcript tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 after transcripts_search provides an episode and start segment, but gives no explicit when-to-use or exclusions versus siblings like transcripts_episode or get_context. It provides clear context but is not comparative.
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.