read_feedRead a curated finance & markets feed by its id (from list_feeds). Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary). Optionally filter items by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Curated feed id (from list_feeds). | |
| limit | No | Max items (1-50, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword filter over item title/summary. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "feed": "bloomberg-markets"
- },
- {
- "feed": "reuters-finance",
- "limit": 10,
- "query": "earnings"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "cnbc"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "cnbc-finance",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "market"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "feed": "bloomberg-markets"
+ },
+ {
+ "feed": "reuters-finance",
+ "limit": 10,
+ "query": "earnings"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the normalized return fields (title, link, published, summary), which is not present in the schema or annotations.
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, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by return shape and optional filtering. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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-only tool with 3 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs: how to identify the feed, what fields are returned, and how to filter. No critical gap remains.
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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'by its id (from list_feeds)' and 'filter items by keyword' largely restates the schema descriptions, adding no new parameter-level meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('curated finance & markets feed') and clarifies the feed is identified by id from list_feeds. This clearly distinguishes it from other feed-related tools and tells the agent exactly what the tool operates on.
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 clear context: use a feed id from list_feeds, and optionally filter by keyword. It implies the prerequisite call to list_feeds but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.