Editor-approved IRIS briefs (signal, meaning, forecast with confidence). May be empty on days without approved briefs; use get_wire for sourced signals.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_daily_brief"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavioral trait: 'May be empty on days without approved briefs', which prevents an agent from treating an empty result as an error. It does not mention auth requirements, freshness/caching, or response envelope details, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 compact sentences: the first states content and structure, the second covers the empty case and the alternative. Nothing is wasted and the most important content is front-loaded.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, its component fields, the empty-result case, and the fallback sibling. Additional detail on output formatting or whether 'daily' is timezone-bound would be the only real gap.
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 parameter semantics is a non-issue; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing a daily, implicitly date-less retrieval.
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 names a specific resource: editor-approved IRIS briefs, and enumerates their components (signal, meaning, forecast with confidence), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It also implicitly contrasts with get_wire. The only weakness is that 'IRIS' is unexplained jargon, so the resource is clear in shape but not in domain meaning.
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 an explicit fallback: 'use get_wire for sourced signals', establishing the alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not spell out when the brief is preferred over other sibling tools (get_market, get_news-like tools), but the primary routing decision is covered.
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.