Fetch investopedia public editorial or RSS sections accepted by investopedia_headlines. Use investopedia_headlines with a returned slug for section stories. Use investopedia_news for the general feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 useful workflow context by revealing that outputs are slugs consumed by investopedia_headlines, but says nothing about the number/format of sections returned beyond what the output schema covers.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the fetch action and then the routing instructions. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction with no filler.
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 zero-parameter tool that already has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: what it fetches and how its output feeds the sibling tools. It does not describe what a 'section' object contains, but the output schema carries that burden.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the schema to document and nothing for the description to compensate for.
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) and resource (investopedia public editorial or RSS sections), and distinguishes itself from siblings investopedia_headlines and investopedia_news by name. The phrase 'accepted by investopedia_headlines' is slightly ambiguous about what a 'section' is, but an agent can still tell this apart from the sibling tools.
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?
Explicitly routes to alternatives: use investopedia_headlines with a returned slug for section stories, and investopedia_news for the general feed. The routing conditions are clear, though the description frames usage mostly in terms of downstream steps rather than when this tool itself should be chosen.
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.
