Fetch the This Is Money RSS section inventory, returning clean JSON lists of finance news sections.
Get This Is Money sections. Returns the public This Is Money RSS section inventory.
| 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 does state that the operation returns a public RSS section inventory, implying a read-only retrieval with no authentication requirement. However, it does not describe the format, fields, ordering, or any other behavioral traits of the response.
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 wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the clarifying output detail follows immediately.
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 inventory tool, this description is largely complete: it names the target publication, the resource type, and the general nature of the output. The lack of an output schema and field-level detail is a minor gap, but not a blocking one for a simple read-only listing operation.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and the schema already indicates no inputs are 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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('This Is Money sections'), and adds the specific output ('public...RSS section inventory'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling 'sections' tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as thisismoney_headlines, thisismoney_news, or other publisher section tools. The context that it returns an RSS section inventory is implicit rather than explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.