Fetch a dated Benzinga editorial article by URL to return its metadata and anonymous body paragraphs for downstream analysis.
Get a Benzinga article. Returns metadata and anonymous body paragraphs from a canonical dated Benzinga editorial article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical dated Benzinga editorial article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload (metadata and 'anonymous' body paragraphs, hinting at a paywall/anonymized render), but says nothing about access requirements, rate limits, or whether failed/invalid URLs error cleanly.
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, no padding: the action plus the input constraint come first, the return shape follows. Every clause 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?
For a one-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back (metadata and body paragraphs), which is the main thing missing from structured fields. Only the failure/auth behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single url parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description only restates the same 'canonical dated editorial article URL' constraint without adding format examples or edge-case handling. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the work.
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 and resource (get a Benzinga article) and adds the returned content shape (metadata plus anonymous body paragraphs). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like benzinga_headlines or benzinga_search, but the by-URL article fetch is distinct enough from those names to be identifiable.
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 requirement of a 'canonical dated Benzinga editorial article URL' implicitly tells the agent this is a URL-input fetch, not a search or browse. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance pointing at benzinga_search/benzinga_headlines/benzinga_news as the alternatives for discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.