Fetch one public Motley Fool investing article by canonical URL and return its metadata, authors, and body paragraphs. Use this to read a story discovered from motleyfool_news or motleyfool_headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping qualifier that the article is public and that the body paragraphs come back, but it does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or behavior on malformed/non-canonical URLs. Adequate but not rich beyond the 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, zero filler. The what/return is front-loaded and the usage routing follows, so an agent gets purpose before instruction.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, yet the description still summarizes them briefly. For a one-parameter, read-only fetch-by-URL tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: the url must be a canonical URL for a Motley Fool article, not merely any link. That is a meaningful constraint the schema itself does not convey, though the format/syntax of a canonical URL is not spelled out.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch), a specific resource (one public Motley Fool investing article), the input form (canonical URL), and the return shape (metadata, authors, body paragraphs). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling discovery tools by naming motleyfool_news and motleyfool_headlines as the sources of URLs it consumes.
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 second sentence tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool: to read a story already discovered via motleyfool_news or motleyfool_headlines. That routes the agent correctly but stops short of explicit when-not guidance or a fuller pipeline description, so it is clear but not exhaustive.
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.
