news_feedsList crypto news source publishers CoinDesk Data (formerly CryptoCompare) aggregates (CoinDesk, CoinTelegraph, etc.) with feed IDs and metadata. Use as a directory before filtering news() by source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Available news feeds",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds that the tool returns feed IDs and metadata, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination or rate limits. With annotations present, this is adequate.
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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The purpose and usage are stated directly, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
With an output schema providing return details, strong annotations, and no parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. It explains the tool's role and how to use it with the news tool, making it complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description implies no inputs are needed and reinforces the directory use case, which is sufficient. No additional parameter explanation is required.
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 lists crypto news source publishers with feed IDs and metadata, and explicitly positions it as a directory for filtering news() by source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like news and news_categories.
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 explicitly says 'Use as a directory before filtering news() by source,' giving a clear when-to-use directive and linking it to the news tool. This effectively guides the agent.
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.