Fetch the public Polygon RSS section inventory to identify valid sections for the headlines endpoint.
Get Polygon RSS sections. Returns the public Polygon RSS section inventory used by the headlines endpoint.
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent the data is public and read-only, but gives no insight into the output shape, whether sections are hierarchical, sorting behavior, pagination, or error modes. This is minimal coverage 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words, and the key context ('used by the headlines endpoint') is front-loaded in the second clause. The first sentence merely restates the tool name, which is mildly redundant, but overall the description is efficient.
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-argument, no-output-schema inventory endpoint, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned and how it relates to the headlines endpoint. It does not explain the structure of the returned sections, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the lack of parameters.
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 empty schema fully covers the input surface. With no parameters to document, the description cannot meaningfully add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Polygon RSS sections'), then elaborates that it returns the public Polygon RSS section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling headlines and section-inventory tools.
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 context by noting the inventory is 'used by the headlines endpoint,' which helps an agent understand when to fetch it. However, it does not name alternatives like polygon_headlines or other comparable section tools, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.