Fetch top stories from MarketWatch's public RSS feed to power news aggregation, monitoring, or finance updates.
Get MarketWatch top stories. Returns fresh MarketWatch stories from the public Top Stories RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source (public RSS feed) and that stories are 'fresh', which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, number of stories, pagination, or any limits. For a simple parameterless tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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 concise sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a relevant detail about the source. Every word earns its 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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple fetch tool. However, it does not indicate the structure of returned stories (e.g., list of titles, links, full text), which an agent might need to know to use the result. A sentence on output format would improve completeness.
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?
There are no parameters (schema is empty), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info since none exist, but it correctly indicates that no input is required.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('MarketWatch top stories'), distinguishing it from siblings like marketwatch_article or marketwatch_headlines. The phrase 'top stories' specifies a subset, and mentioning the RSS feed adds clarity about the source.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies this is for top stories, it does not mention sibling tools like marketwatch_headlines or marketwatch_sections, nor does it state when not to use them. An agent might pick this over a more specific tool without knowing the difference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.