Fetch fresh headlines from any Polygon RSS section, including gaming, entertainment, anime, horror, and guides, for quick news monitoring.
Get Polygon section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Polygon RSS section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Polygon RSS section slug |
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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'fresh headlines' and that it's from a public RSS section, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention pagination, output format, error behavior, or any rate limits. For a simple tool this is adequate but not rich.
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 fluff. The purpose is front-loaded and the additional detail about freshness and RSS section is directly relevant. No wasted words.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and input. However, it doesn't describe the return structure (e.g., list of headline objects), which would be helpful since there's no output schema. It also lacks guidance on how the section enum maps to actual content, but the schema already provides that.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with an enum and description for the section parameter. The description adds no new meaning beyond saying it's a 'public Polygon RSS section', which is redundant. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Polygon section headlines', distinguishing it from sibling tools like polygon_sections (which lists sections) and polygon_news (which might cover all news). It also specifies 'one public Polygon RSS section', which is unambiguous.
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 like polygon_news or other headlines tools. It doesn't mention when not to use it or what differentiates it from related tools. The 'one public Polygon RSS section' hints at scoping, but doesn't compare with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.