whats_newFree: cards changed since a date, each with a one-line headline (name, card date, next update) and content_hash so you skip re-buying unchanged cards. Missing coverage? Use request_data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| cards | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| since | No | ||
| bundles | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / cards / items / properties / headlineAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context beyond them: the tool is free, returns one-line headlines, and provides content_hash so unchanged cards can be skipped. It does not state what happens when the optional 'since' parameter is omitted.
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?
The description is two tight sentences, front-loading the tool's purpose and then the fallback path. Every phrase earns its place.
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 the description need not explain return values in detail, and it already highlights the important content_hash and headline fields. The main gap is the unstated behavior when the optional 'since' parameter is omitted.
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?
There is one optional 'since' parameter with a YYYY-MM-DD pattern in the schema, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'since a date' but adds no format, default, or omission behavior, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 resource and scope: cards changed since a given date, with headline fields and content_hash. It distinguishes itself from request_data for coverage gaps, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools like get_filing_delta or get_bundle.
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?
It gives a clear alternative path: if coverage is missing, use request_data. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over related siblings such as get_bundle or get_filing_delta.
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.