stock_news_globalRetrieve up-to-date global financial news to monitor market-moving events and support investment decisions.
获取最新的全球财经快讯
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "stock_news_global"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get the latest global financial news' and does not explain return format, sources, whether data is cached, update frequency, pagination, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with minimal knowledge of what happens at invocation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and resource with no filler. It wastes no words and is appropriately short for such a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable for invoking it, but it does not explain what the returned news data looks like or any limitations. A slightly richer description (e.g., 'returns a list of headlines with timestamps') would make it fully 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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema already covers 100% of input semantics. The description cannot add parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain.
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 states a clear verb (获取/gets) and a specific resource (最新的全球财经快讯, latest global financial news bulletins), and no sibling tool offers the same global-news scope, so an agent can easily distinguish it. The title reinforces the resource as well.
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 usage context is implied rather than stated: the description implies the tool should be used when the user wants the latest global financial news, but it does not mention any alternative, exclusions, or conditions. For a zero-parameter news tool this is acceptable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.