Extract public Polygon article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL for reading, indexing, or content analysis.
Get Polygon article content. Returns public Polygon article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Polygon article URL |
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns metadata and body paragraphs, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it requires authentication, how it handles invalid or non-canonical URLs, or any error behavior. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and it directly states the input and output. It is efficient and well-structured.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description must explain the return value in enough detail for an agent to know what to expect. It only says 'metadata and body paragraphs', which is vague and does not specify what metadata includes (e.g., title, author, date) or the format of the body content. It also omits error handling and any constraints on the URL, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to use reliably.
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 description for the 'url' parameter is 'Canonical Polygon article URL', which is essentially a restatement of the parameter name. The tool description repeats 'canonical article URL', adding no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
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 tool retrieves Polygon article content, specifically metadata and body paragraphs, from a canonical article URL. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'Polygon article' are explicit, and the mention of 'canonical article URL' distinguishes it from sibling tools like polygon_headlines or polygon_sections, which serve different purposes.
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 description implies usage when a canonical article URL is available, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as polygon_author or polygon_sections. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.