Retrieves recent news coverage of a company from Reuters, Economic Times, Mint, Business Standard, and Moneycontrol, sorted by publish date, to support research and due diligence.
Retrieves recent news coverage of a company from Reuters, Economic Times, Mint, Business Standard, and Moneycontrol, sorted by publish date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | ||
| daysBack | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description matches the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it 'retrieves' data, so there is no contradiction. However, it adds no additional behavioral details beyond the annotation, such as rate limits, data freshness constraints, or any side effects, so it adds minimal transparency beyond the annotation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes essential details (sources, sorting). There is no fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately concise and clear.
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 nested context object and the daysBack parameter, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It does not indicate that company is required, explain the role of daysBack, or clarify how the country or domain parameters affect results. The schema provides limited help (some nested descriptions), but the overall tool context is not sufficiently covered by the description.
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 description does not explain the meaning or purpose of any parameter, including the required context object or the daysBack field. With 0% schema description coverage on top-level parameters, the description contributes no semantic value to understanding how to use the parameters.
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 states the tool retrieves recent news coverage for a company, specifies the exact news sources (Reuters, Economic Times, Mint, Business Standard, Moneycontrol), and mentions sorting by publish date, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as negative_news or other news-related tools. It does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.