Fetch MarketWatch article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, returning clean JSON for integration.
Get MarketWatch article content. Returns public MarketWatch article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical MarketWatch 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 disclosure burden. It adds useful context by saying the content is 'public' and by describing the return shape, but it does not disclose failure behavior, strict read-only semantics, or any URL validity constraints beyond 'canonical.'
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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated in the first sentence and the return contents in the second. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the second, but overall it is scannable and appropriately sized.
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 fetch tool, this is nearly complete: it identifies the source, the required input form, and the nature of the returned content. It could be more explicit about exact metadata fields, but an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema fully documents the single 'url' parameter as a 'Canonical MarketWatch article URL,' so the schema already covers parameter meaning. The description reinforces the canonical-URL requirement but does not add meaningful detail beyond 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 is specific: it names the verb 'Get', the resource 'MarketWatch article content', and the return type ('metadata and body paragraphs') from a canonical article URL. It clearly separates this from headline/news/author sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 intended context is implied: use this when you have a canonical MarketWatch article URL and want its metadata and body paragraphs. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives like marketwatch_headlines or marketwatch_news.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.