Fetch the 50 newest Moneycontrol headlines across all sections, newest first, with publication time and image. Returns clean JSON for easy integration.
Get Moneycontrol latest news. Returns the 50 newest Moneycontrol stories across all sections, newest first, with publication time and image.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses a fixed count of 50 stories, global scope across all sections, newest-first ordering, and included fields (publication time and image). It does not mention pagination or lack of filters, but for a zero-parameter read-only feed this is reasonably transparent.
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 sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the second sentence packs scope, count, ordering, and return fields into a single efficient statement.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key facts: what is returned, how many, the scope, ordering, and fields. It could be richer by enumerating all returned story fields or stating that pagination is not supported, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema properties object is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; no parameter explanation is needed or attempted.
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?
States a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('Moneycontrol latest news'), and adds precise scope: '50 newest Moneycontrol stories across all sections, newest first'. It is clearly a news-feed tool rather than an article/author tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from moneycontrol_headlines or name a sibling.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. An agent must infer when to use this instead of moneycontrol_headlines, moneycontrol_sections, moneycontrol_article, or moneycontrol_author. The description contains no routing, exclusions, or context about which sibling is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.