Access the publisher's disclosures—personal positions, affiliate commissions, and conflicts of interest—to evaluate potential bias in market-regime content.
The publisher's disclosures: personal positions, affiliate commissions, conflicts of interest.
| 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 full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, freshness, licensing, or access requirements. It only lists what topics the data covers, leaving the agent to guess at the operation's traits.
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 naming the resource followed by an enumeration of contents; there is no filler. It is a noun phrase fragment rather than a complete statement of action, which slightly weakens structure.
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 parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to identify what the tool returns, which it does. The remaining gap is operational context (when to use it, whether access is restricted), but the core identity is complete.
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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing is missing on this dimension.
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 names a specific resource (the publisher's disclosures) and enumerates its contents: personal positions, affiliate commissions, conflicts of interest. An agent can tell this returns conflict-of-interest material rather than, say, deviations or results records. It lacks an explicit verb and doesn't contrast itself with close siblings like get_deviations, keeping it below 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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_deviations or get_results_record, and no stated preconditions. Usage must be inferred purely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.