digestAggregate the top-N articles across selected verticals for the requested window. Heaviest action — counts more against the per-agent rate limit. Use this for 'read me today's tech news' style prompts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| window | No | 24h | |
| verticals | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds the key behavioral note that this is the 'heaviest action' and counts more against the per-agent rate limit. This is useful context not present in the annotations, aiding in cost/rate management.
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?
Two sentences: the first defines the action and scope, the second adds a use-case example and rate-limit warning. Every sentence is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and a critical rate-limit caveat, making it reasonably complete for a simple read-only tool with no output schema. It does not mention that verticals is optional or the default window, but those are captured in the schema, and the description adds enough to avoid major confusion.
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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'top-N' (limit), 'selected verticals' (verticals), and 'requested window' (window). This gives functional meaning to all three parameters, though it does not enumerate allowed enum values (those are 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 aggregates top-N articles across verticals for a time window, with a specific verb ('Aggregate') and resource ('articles'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like digest_declassified or get_vertical_briefing, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
Gives a clear usage context with the example prompt 'read me today's tech news' and warns that it is a heavy action for rate limits. It does not mention specific alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Even similar tools like search_articles, search_declassified, and search_unified target different corpora, and the publisher tools are well-separated. No overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using clear prefixes like get_, search_, subscribe_, publisher_, fm_, digest_, etc. The naming is predictable and systematic, making it easy for an agent to infer functionality.
At 37 tools, the count is higher than the typical 3-15 range for a coherent set, but the server covers a wide domain (content retrieval, podcast management, fund manager book, embedder network, etc.). Each tool earns its place, though the set could be slightly reduced by merging some rare-use tools.
The tool surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose—search, audio, subscriptions, publisher workflows, and special features like the Divergence Index. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit unsubscribe tool, no article update/delete), but they are not critical for core workflows.