get_newsRetrieve company or market-wide news disclosures from Dhaka Stock Exchange, newest first. Enter a symbol for company news or omit for all market updates.
Company or market-wide news/disclosures. Omit symbol for market-wide (inst=All); returns newest items first with titles, bodies, post dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| symbol | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are returned newest-first and include titles, bodies, and post dates, and explains the symbol-omitted behavior as market-wide. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core scope first, then the key parameter behavior and result format. Every clause adds useful information and there is no 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 simple read-only news tool with an output schema and three optional parameters, the description is nearly complete. The main invocation behavior and return ordering are covered, though explicit explanation of days and limit would make it fully self-contained.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of symbol, including the null market-wide case, but says nothing about the days or limit parameters, leaving their meaning to inference from names and defaults.
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 clearly identifies the resource as company or market-wide news/disclosures and states the output ordering and fields. It does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools, but the news domain is unique among the listed siblings.
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 description provides clear context: use this tool for company-specific or market-wide news, and omit symbol to get market-wide results. It does not offer explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but there is no obvious competing news sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.