get_news_card_detailThe full concept card behind a NewsPulse headline: bullets, Prelims & Mains relevance, concept explainers with static-syllabus links, and the source citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Card slug from get_current_affairs | |
| language | No | ISO code: en, hi, te, ta, or, bn, mr, pa, kn | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the return content—what the concept card includes (bullets, relevance, explainers with links, citation)—which is especially useful given no output schema. No behavioral contradictions; the description is consistent with the read-only nature.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('The full concept card behind a NewsPulse headline') and enumerates key contents concisely. 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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It covers the essential return elements and implicitly suggests a workflow (get headline then card detail). However, it lacks explicit usage guidance, preventing a perfect score.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described (slug as 'Card slug from get_current_affairs' and language as ISO codes). The tool description itself does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 title 'Read a full NewsPulse concept card' and description specify the exact resource (a NewsPulse concept card) and its contents (bullets, relevance, explainers, source citation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_affairs, which presumably lists headlines, and other quiz/topic tools.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that the slug comes from get_current_affairs (though the schema parameter does), nor does it state when this tool is appropriate (e.g., after browsing headlines). Context is only implied by the phrase 'behind a NewsPulse headline'.
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 addresses a distinct task: current affairs listing vs. detail, PYQ sample, topic catalog, knowledge search, and quiz start/submit. There is no functional overlap between the tools, and descriptions make the boundaries clear.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_, list_, search_, start_, submit_). The naming scheme is predictable and easy to infer.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for an IAS preparation server. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is within the ideal range for a focused domain.
The toolset covers core UPSC prep needs: current affairs, static knowledge search, PYQ sampling, and quiz practice. The only minor gap is the lack of full PYQ papers, but the sample tool intentionally points to the platform for complete sets.