List Polygon RSS sections that polygon-headlines accepts, including slugs, display names, and feed URLs so you can choose the correct section feed.
Get Polygon RSS sections. Lists the Polygon sections that polygon-headlines accepts, from gaming-news and gaming-reviews to guides and videos. Each entry has a slug, a display name and the section's feed url.
| 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, and it delivers useful disclosure: the operation is a read/list ("Get", "Lists") and the returned entry shape is spelled out (slug, name, feed url). It omits anything about cardinality, stability of the taxonomy, or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool, then the sibling relationship, then the return shape. Nothing is wasted or repeated.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and with no parameters and no annotations there is little else an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain (no hint at how many sections or whether the list is stable), so it is near-complete rather than exhaustive.
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 the schema-based baseline of 4 applies. The description does add that the returned entries carry a `slug`, `name` and feed `url`, though that is output rather than input semantics.
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 and resource ("Get Polygon RSS sections") and immediately ties itself to a concrete sibling, `polygon-headlines`. An agent can distinguish it from polygon_headlines, polygon_news and polygon_article without opening a schema.
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 makes the consumption relationship explicit: these are the sections that `polygon-headlines` accepts, which tells the agent to call this to discover valid section values. It stops short of an explicit "call this before polygon_headlines" instruction or any when-not guidance, so it is clear context rather than full routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.