Fetch current Benzinga top stories through Crawlora MCP to track market news, returning titles, URLs, summaries, authors, times, and images with no input needed.
Get Benzinga top stories. Returns the current Benzinga stories, with no input needed. Each item has a title, URL and a summary that is the publisher's short teaser rather than article text, and may also carry the author, publication time and image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden, and it does add genuine value: it explains the return shape (title, URL, summary, author, time, image) and, importantly, warns that the summary is a publisher teaser rather than article text. It omits freshness/pagination/rate-limit behavior, keeping 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return details, with no wasted filler. 'Returns the current Benzinga stories, with no input needed' is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, so not a perfect 5.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns and the nature of the summary field. It lacks only freshness/volume details, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no input needed', and there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation.
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 Benzinga top stories') and clarifies it needs no input. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like benzinga_headlines, benzinga_sections, or benzinga_article, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a sibling such as benzinga_headlines or benzinga_search would be preferable, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is 'no input needed', which is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.