Retrieve the feed catalog to review indicators, rules, schedule, pricing, access tiers, timestamp proofs, and the full results record before subscribing.
Describe the feed: indicators and their rules, schedule, price, latest and first issue dates, free and paid access, timestamp proofs and the results record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Describe' plus the metadata listing makes clear this is a non-mutating informational read, and the output schema covers return values. However, it says nothing about side effects, auth requirements, or freshness of the catalog itself.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and purpose, then lists the covered content. Efficient and waste-free, though the comma-separated inventory is slightly dense.
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 metadata tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what the response covers and needs no return-value explanation. The only shortfall is not clarifying its relationship to closely related siblings such as get_schema and get_results_record.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is also 100%, leaving no gap.
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 ('Describe') and clearly scopes the resource as the feed's catalog metadata, enumerating the content (indicators and rules, schedule, price, dates, access, timestamp proofs, results record). This separates it from data-returning siblings like get_latest_issue or list_issues, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from get_schema or get_results_record, which it mentions by name.
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 enumeration of feed-level metadata implies this is the discovery/overview call an agent should make before fetching issues or results, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead for...' statement despite several overlapping siblings (get_schema, get_results_record). Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.