Fetch recent public investing stories from The Motley Fool's news sitemap to stay updated on market trends and financial headlines.
Get The Motley Fool top investing stories. Returns recent public investing stories from The Motley Fool's news sitemap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It discloses the data source (news sitemap) and that stories are public and recent, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, caching/freshness, or auth needs for a feed-style endpoint.
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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the sourcing detail. Both sentences contribute; nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned but omits feed mechanics (ordering, count, pagination, time window) that an agent would need to call and use it confidently. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top investing stories') and names the source (The Motley Fool news sitemap). It distinguishes itself reasonably from motleyfool_headlines and motleyfool_article by implying a curated 'top stories' feed, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the closely-named sibling motleyfool_headlines or motleyfool_sections, both of which sound like they return similar list content. No conditions, no alternatives, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.