Fetch a This Is Money author profile from a canonical URL, returning byline metadata, biography, coverage topics, and recent articles in structured JSON.
Get a This Is Money author profile. Returns a This Is Money author's byline metadata, biography, coverage topics, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical This Is Money author 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 carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get', 'Returns') and describes the output content, but it does not disclose any limitations, error conditions, or rate limits. It is not contradictory, but it adds little beyond the schema.
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 a single sentence that is concise and includes the core purpose first, then lists what is returned. There is no redundant wording, though it could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for purpose and return details.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. It does not mention any prerequisites or format nuances beyond what the schema provides, but given the low complexity, it is adequate.
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 already describes the 'url' parameter as 'Canonical This Is Money author URL' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this ('canonical author URL') without adding new meaning or format details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 gets a This Is Money author profile and lists the content it returns (byline metadata, biography, coverage topics, recent articles). It is specific about the resource and what to expect, but does not explicitly differentiate from other author tools for different sites, though the site name is embedded.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for This Is Money authors specifically or contrast with article tools or other author tools. An agent has to infer usage 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.