latest_articleRetrieve the current published editorial with title, full text, URL, clock, and quality receipt; returns an error if text or receipt is missing.
Read the latest published editorial: title, full text, URL, clock and quality receipt. No arguments. Missing text or failed receipt returns an error; no generated prose. Use liquidity_tiers for board data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: no arguments, errors on missing text or failed quality receipt, and "no generated prose," which tells the agent the content is verbatim published material rather than synthesized output.
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?
Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by input/error behavior and the sibling pointer. No filler or repetition of the title.
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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing title, full text, URL, clock, and quality receipt, plus failure modes. It stops just short of describing receipt format or freshness semantics, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema needs no elaboration and the baseline is 4. The description's "No arguments" is consistent with the empty schema and confirms the tool takes no input.
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 and resource ("Read the latest published editorial") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It also names the sibling it is not ("Use liquidity_tiers for board data"), cleanly separating it from the finance-oriented tools in the sibling list.
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?
Provides a clear selection rule by routing board-data needs to liquidity_tiers, and "No arguments" tells the agent there is nothing to configure. It stops short of stating when this tool itself is the right choice (e.g., only for editorials, once per publish cycle), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.