financial_evidence_topicsDiscover supported financial research topics and their fixed public raw-JSON routes, enabling direct access to structured evidence without network calls.
List supported topics and their fixed public raw-JSON routes without network access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context that the result is fixed, public, raw-JSON, and requires no network access. This goes beyond the structured annotations by clarifying auth expectations, output format, and the absence of network I/O.
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 entire description is one focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the key behavioral qualifiers. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague filler.
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 parameterless listing tool, the description is complete: it states what will be returned (topics and routes), the nature of those routes (fixed, public, raw-JSON), and the operational characteristic (no network access). No output schema exists, but the description supplies enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.
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 has no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The empty input schema is fully accounted for, and the description confirms there is nothing else to configure.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('supported topics and their fixed public raw-JSON routes'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates from the sibling fetch/route tools by emphasizing enumeration of routes rather than retrieval of data.
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 phrase 'without network access' signals that this is a metadata/discovery call, not a data-fetching call, so it should be used before invoking financial_evidence_fetch. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the zero-parameter, discovery-oriented wording gives sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.