Retrieve a news website contributor's public profile, covering name, role, biography, and recent articles, from a supplied slug or canonical URL.
Get a MarketWatch author profile. Returns one MarketWatch author's public profile: name, job title, bio, and their recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical marketwatch.com/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. hannah-pedone |
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 burden. It discloses that the operation is a read (Get), that data is public, and what fields are returned, but it does not mention pagination of 'recent articles,' failure modes, or behavior when both url and slug are supplied.
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 tight sentences lead with the action and then state the return contract. No filler, no repetition of schema fields, and every clause is informative.
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 two-parameter profile lookup, the description adequately explains the output when no output schema exists. It falls short only by not explicitly telling the agent to provide one of url/slug and by omitting any note about how much of an author's recent-article history is returned.
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%, so the schema already documents url and slug; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The absence of any note that one parameter is required (despite an empty required array) is a minor gap, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get a MarketWatch author profile.' It also enumerates the returned contents (name, job title, bio, recent articles), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces and can distinguish it from MarketWatch article, headlines, news, and section tools.
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 tool's purpose clearly implies when to use it—when an agent needs a MarketWatch author profile—but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over alternatives, nor does it mention the one-of constraint implied by having both url and slug parameters. Usage context is present but no exclusions or routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.