Fetch Polygon top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use polygon_headlines with a supported section slug. Use polygon_article with a returned article URL when you need one story's body.
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds that the feed is public and returns headline items from the general top-story stream (not full bodies), which clarifies the return nature beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about pagination or volume.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it fetches, followed by the two routing alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct value with no redundancy.
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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read tool, the description plus structured data leave nothing an agent needs 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. No misleading parameter claims are made.
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) plus resource (Polygon top stories) and scope (general top-story stream). It explicitly distinguishes itself from polygon_headlines (section-specific) and polygon_article (single story body), so the agent can route without opening any schema.
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?
Names both alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: polygon_headlines for a section-specific list, polygon_article for a single story's body. This is explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance rather than implied context.
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.
