Get Mint article metadata and body paragraphs by providing a canonical article URL. Returns error for Mint Premium stories.
Get Mint article content. Returns public Mint article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. A story Mint marks "Mint Premium" returns a permission error instead of a body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Mint article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only public articles are returned, that the output includes metadata and body paragraphs, and that Mint Premium stories produce a permission error instead of a body. This is strong behavioral context, though minor details like response format are not specified.
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 three short sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundant detail.
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 tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the input, what is returned, and a key failure mode. It could add more detail about the exact response shape or which sibling tools cover author/headline data, but these are not essential for correct invocation.
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% and the only parameter, url, is already documented as the "Canonical Mint article URL." The description's mention of a "canonical article URL" largely repeats the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get Mint article content," then states exactly what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs) and the required input (canonical article URL). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like livemint_author, livemint_headlines, and livemint_sections.
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?
It clearly frames when to use the tool: when the agent has a canonical Mint article URL and needs the public article's metadata and body. The Mint Premium caveat also tells the agent when the tool will not return body content, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.