Fetch a Forbes person's public JSON profile by URI, including biography, net worth, wealth history, personal facts, and list appearances.
Forbes person profile. Returns public Forbes JSON profile data plus the profile page's biography, real-time net-worth display, wealth history, personal facts, editor update, and list-appearance metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | Forbes person URI |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey read-only behavior by saying it 'Returns public Forbes JSON profile data' and lists what is included, but it does not mention error behavior, data freshness, rate limits, or whether values like real-time net worth change between calls.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the resource named first and the returned fields listed compactly. It is efficient, though 'Forbes' and 'profile' appear redundantly across the two sentences.
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?
The description enumerates the expected return content, which is helpful since no output schema exists. However, it leaves the only input ambiguous by not giving a concrete URI example or explaining how to construct or obtain a valid Forbes person URI.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, 'uri', is described as 'Forbes person URI'. The tool description adds no example or format detail (slug vs full URL), but for a single obvious parameter the schema already provides a baseline 3 level of meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('Forbes person profile'), then enumerates the data categories included. It is distinguishable from siblings like forbes_article, forbes_author, and forbes_billionaires, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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 does not state when to choose this tool over nearby alternatives such as forbes_author or forbes_billionaires. It implies a use case through the content list, but it gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.