Lists all Barron's editorial topics with slugs, display names, and landing-page URLs, providing the valid values for the /barrons/headlines section parameter.
List Barron's topics. Lists every Barron's editorial topic accepted by /barrons/headlines' section parameter, with each topic's slug, display name, and landing-page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the list is exhaustive ('every'), scoped to editorial topics accepted by the section parameter, and includes three specific fields per topic. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or rate limits, but for a simple enumeration tool this is adequate.
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 with no filler: the first states the action and resource, the second adds scope and return fields. The key relationship to /barrons/headlines 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 list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what it will receive (slug, display name, landing-page URL) and why it matters (valid values for the headlines section parameter). Nothing needed 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input surface. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed; baseline 4 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('Barron's topics'), then specifies that it enumerates every editorial topic accepted by /barrons/headlines' section parameter. This distinguishes it from headline/news tools and clarifies the output fields (slug, display name, landing-page URL).
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 description identifies the tool's role as a source of valid values for /barrons/headlines' section parameter, giving an agent clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the reference to the sibling headlines tool is sufficient for a zero-parameter list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.