signal-bureau

get_watch_feed

The structured daily delivery for a machine-watched topic: up to 14 days of observed items (title, url, source, date) newest-first, plus the topic's live coverage-acceptance report, which grades the coverage and shows the evidence (it does not gate billing — billing starts when the Watch starts, and the month you are in is refundable in full, any time you ask, for any reason). Delivery is pull: poll daily or on demand. Topics not yet watched: get_quote prices them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	How many recent days to return (1-14, default 14)
`topic`	Yes	The watched topic name (as quoted/ordered)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses delivery mode (pull), output structure (newest-first items, grading report), and billing behavior (does not gate billing, month refundable). This goes beyond basic read-only/write categorization and provides useful operational context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single long paragraph with the billing policy embedded, which is tangential to tool invocation. While dense with useful information, it lacks front-loading and includes extra commercial details that could be trimmed without losing operational clarity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description adequately covers return contents (observed items with fields, coverage report), ordering, delivery mode, and billing implications. With no output schema, it effectively explains what the tool returns. Minor gaps like error handling or missing-topic behavior keep it from a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context like 'up to 14 days' matching the schema and 'newest-first' which describes output ordering, not parameter meaning. It doesn't meaningfully enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: it delivers a structured daily feed for a machine-watched topic, including up to 14 days of observed items and a coverage-acceptance report. This specific verb+resource (get/feed) distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote and get_desk_feed.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when NOT to use this tool: 'Topics not yet watched: get_quote prices them.' This provides a clear alternative for unwatched topics and implies this tool is for already-watched topics. Also notes delivery is pull (poll daily or on demand), giving clear usage context.

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

All signal-bureau tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function: ask is async event queries, get_answer retrieves results, get_signals and top_accelerating provide different signal views, get_entity and search_entities cover entity details and search, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a 'get_' prefix for retrieval (13 of 21) and other clear verbs like 'ask', 'create_order', 'propose_topic', 'send_feedback'. A few use noun phrases like 'todays_brief' and 'top_accelerating', which breaks the pattern slightly but are still intuitive. Overall consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

21 tools cover the full scope of the server: exploration, querying, ordering, account management, feedback, and data records. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major workflows: browsing signals, asking questions, getting detailed reports, ordering, providing feedback, and proposing new topics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to cancel an order or manage watched topics directly), but core operations are present and agents can handle the domain effectively.

Resources

Need Help?