Retrieve current headlines from a selected public Mint section to monitor news and gather structured updates for research or alerts.
Get Mint section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Mint section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Mint section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting headlines are 'fresh' and that the section must be 'public,' and 'Returns' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination, result limits, or any rate-limit/auth behavior.
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?
At two sentences and 12 words, the description is efficiently front-loaded with the core action ('Get Mint section headlines') followed by a compact clarifying clause. There is slight redundancy between 'Get Mint section headlines' and 'Returns fresh headlines from one public Mint section,' but the added qualifiers earn their 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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequately complete: it names the resource, the section scoping, freshness, and public nature. It could mention what a 'headline' entry includes, but this is not essential for correct selection and 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'section', is fully documented by its enum and 'Mint section slug' description. The description adds a small extra cue that the section should be public and that only one section is returned per call, but it does not meaningfully expand on the schema.
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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get Mint section headlines' and then clarifies it 'Returns fresh headlines from one public Mint section.' This distinguishes it from broader tools like livemint_news or livemint_sections, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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 'from one public Mint section' implies the tool should be used when a specific Mint section's headlines are needed, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like livemint_news or livemint_article, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.