List the four menu-verified Benzinga editorial news sections accepted by headline queries to select valid categories.
List Benzinga news sections. Returns the four menu-verified Benzinga editorial sections accepted by benzinga_headlines.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result set is small and fixed ('four menu-verified ... sections'), which tells an agent not to expect pagination or a large payload. It says nothing about authentication, the exact return shape, or ordering, so for a tool with zero annotation coverage the disclosure is partial.
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 short sentences, zero filler, and the operational detail (four menu-verified sections accepted by benzinga_headlines) is front-loaded right after the core purpose. Nothing to trim.
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-only enumerator this is nearly complete: purpose, cardinality, and the downstream consumer are all stated. The only gap is the absence of any return-format hint, which matters slightly more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 no parameters, so per the baseline this stays at 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds the meaning of the output (enumerable section identifiers) rather than leaving the agent guessing.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('Benzinga news sections'), and it goes further by stating the cardinality and that the returned sections are the ones accepted by benzinga_headlines. That instantly separates it from benzinga_news, benzinga_article, and benzinga_search without opening any schema.
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 phrase 'accepted by benzinga_headlines' implies the intended workflow: call this first to learn valid section values, then feed them to benzinga_headlines. Strong contextual routing, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when / do not use this for X' statement and names no rejected alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.