Skip to main content
Glama

Helium MCP Server - News, Markets & AI

get_all_source_biases

Get a page of news-source bias scores.

Returns sources active within the last 36 days with >100 articles analyzed, sorted by
avg_social_shares descending. The response also includes total, offset, limit, has_more,
and one shared bias_score_methodology block.

Each entry contains:
- source_name, slug_name, page_url
- articles_analyzed: total articles analyzed for this source
- avg_social_shares: average social shares per article (proxy for reach/influence)
- emotionality_score (0-10): average emotional intensity of the writing
- prescriptiveness_score (0-10): how much the source tells readers what to think/do
- bias_values: dict mapping classifier key → integer source weighted display score
  (-50 to +50 for bipolar, 0 to +50 for unipolar). Keys use the same canonical
  names as get_bias_from_url where a source aggregate is available, but article scores use
  -10 to +10 or 0 to 10. Compare direction directly; normalize before comparing magnitude.

  Political / ideological (bipolar: neg=left pole, pos=right pole):
    'liberal conservative bias'      neg=liberal, pos=conservative
    'populist elitist bias'           neg=populist, pos=elitist
    'libertarian authoritarian bias' neg=libertarian, pos=authoritarian
    'dovish hawkish bias'            neg=dovish, pos=hawkish
    'establishment bias'             neg=anti-establishment, pos=pro-establishment

  Credibility / quality (bipolar):
    'overall credibility'            neg=low credibility, pos=high credibility
    'integrity bias'                 neg=low integrity, pos=high integrity
    'article intelligence'           neg=low intelligence, pos=high intelligence
    'delusion bias'                  neg=truth-seeking, pos=delusional
    'objective subjective bias'      neg=objective, pos=subjective
    'objective sensational bias'     neg=objective, pos=sensational
    'descriptive prescriptive bias'  neg=descriptive, pos=prescriptive
    'bearish bullish bias'           neg=bearish, pos=bullish
    'interesting'                    neg=boring, pos=interesting
    'emotional bias'                 neg=negative tone, pos=positive tone
    'rational irrational bias'       neg=rational, pos=irrational
    'corporate bias'                 neg=anti-corporate, pos=pro-corporate
    'science superstition bias'      neg=scientific, pos=superstitious
    'individualist collectivist bias' neg=individualist, pos=collectivist

  Unipolar bias dimensions (higher = more of that trait):
    'opinion bias'                   opinion vs informative
    'political bias'                 political content
    'fearful bias'                   fear-based framing
    'overconfidence bias'            overconfidence
    'gossip bias'                    gossip
    'manipulation bias'              manipulative framing
    'ideological bias'               ideological rigidity
    'conspiracy bias'                conspiracy content
    'double standard bias'           double standards
    'virtue signal bias'             virtue signaling
    'oversimplification bias'        oversimplification
    'appeal to authority bias'       appeal to authority
    'begging the question bias'      question-begging
    'victimization bias'             victimization framing
    'terrorism bias'                 terrorism content
    'marxism bias'                   Marxist framing
    'islamist bias'                  Islamist framing
    'anti-semitism bias'             anti-Jewish framing
    'anti-lgbt bias'                 anti-LGBT framing
    'racism bias'                    racist framing
    'anti-enlightenment bias'        regressive, anti-liberal content
    'scapegoat bias'                 scapegoating
    'hypocrisy bias'                 hypocrisy
    'suicidal empathy bias'          suicidal-empathy framing
    'cruelty bias'                   cruelty
    'woke bias'                      woke framing
    'written by AI'                  AI-written likelihood
    'immature bias'                  immaturity
    'circular reasoning bias'        circular reasoning
    'covering the response bias'     covering-the-response tactic
    'spam bias'                      spam-like content
    'advertising bias'               advertorial or promotional content
    'speculation bias'               speculation or forecasting

Tip: use get_source_bias for full narrative descriptions and recent articles on a specific source.
Tip: bias_values use shared canonical names where available. Source and article score scales
differ, so normalize magnitudes.
get_source_bias exposes the same canonical keys in bias_values and retains emoji-prefixed
bias_scores only for backward compatibility.

Args:
    limit: Sources to return (1-1000, default 200).
    offset: Number of sources to skip for pagination (default 0).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses sorting order, pagination fields, inclusion criteria, and detailed meaning of every output field, including scale differences between source and article scores. This is highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-organized with clear sections, bullet lists, and tips. The extensive list of bias dimensions is justified given the complex output, but its length prevents a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers pagination, sorting, inclusion criteria, output field semantics, canonical key naming, scale normalization, and sibling tool distinctions. It leaves no significant gaps for correct invocation and interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The Args section adds bounds for limit (1-1000) and explains offset as 'Number of sources to skip for pagination,' which goes beyond the schema's default values. This gives the agent crucial operational context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get a page of news-source bias scores,' naming the specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing get_source_bias and get_bias_from_url for different use cases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the tool's scope (sources active within last 36 days with >100 articles) and includes an explicit tip to use get_source_bias for full narrative descriptions on a specific source. It doesn't enumerate all when-not-to-use scenarios, but the alternative is clearly pointed out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but two pairs could cause confusion: get_all_source_biases vs. get_source_bias, and search_news vs. search_balanced_news. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them (list vs. single source; RSS vs. synthesized stories), so an agent can disambiguate with careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_* for retrievals and search_* for searches. Any variations (e.g., get_all_source_biases vs. get_source_bias) are natural qualifiers and don't break the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools spanning news bias analysis, options data, ticker data, and trading strategies, the count is well-scoped. Each tool has a distinct role and the set is neither too thin nor overloaded.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflows: searching news, analyzing bias at both article and source level, retrieving market data, options chains, and strategy rankings. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to fetch a full article by ID or list all news sources, but these are workarounds with existing tools.

Resources