Retrieve Polygon top stories from its public RSS feed to stay informed on current gaming and entertainment news.
Get Polygon top stories. Returns fresh Polygon top stories from its public 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 burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a 'public RSS feed' and returns 'fresh' stories, implying a read-only operation with fresh data. However, it does not mention any potential rate limits, pagination, or response format specifics, which could be relevant.
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 short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get Polygon top stories') and adds one 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what it returns and where the data comes from. The only minor gap is a lack of detail about the response structure, but that is not essential for a simple top-stories feed.
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, so the schema automatically covers all inputs. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. It adds no parameter-specific detail, but none 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Polygon top stories.' It clearly indicates what data is returned. It distinguishes from siblings like polygon_article (specific article) and polygon_headlines (possibly a different aggregation) by focusing on 'top stories' from the RSS feed.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like polygon_headlines, polygon_sections, or polygon_article. There is no mention of when to prefer top stories over other Polygon fetch options, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.