Identify a country's deposit-insurance scheme and its headline coverage (US FDIC, UK FSCS, CA CDIC, AU FCS, NZ DCS) with the regulator's URL and as_of date. country accepts ISO codes or names: US/USA, UK/GB, CA, AU, NZ. Free, no key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Topic key (default: deposit_insurance). | deposit_insurance |
| country | Yes | Country code or name: US/USA, UK/GB, CA, AU, NZ (e.g. "GB", "Canada"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / country / descriptionPrevious value: -"Country code: US, UK, CA, AU, or NZ. Example: \"CA\"."New value: +"Country code or name: US/USA, UK/GB, CA, AU, NZ (e.g. \"GB\", \"Canada\")."Input schema / properties / country / enumRemoved value: -[
- "US",
- "UK",
- "CA",
- "AU",
- "NZ"
-]Input schema / properties / country / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "US",
+ "GB",
+ "UK",
+ "CA",
+ "AU",
+ "NZ"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing cost and authentication ('Free, no key') and previewing the response shape (regulator URL and as_of date).
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then accepted inputs and access constraints. 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (scheme, headline coverage, regulator URL, as_of date), which is what an agent needs to judge fit. The unused 'topic' parameter is never mentioned in prose, a minor omission given it is a single-value defaulted enum.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including examples and the enum default. The description only restates the accepted country code/name formats, adding no new syntax, normalization rules, or error behavior.
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+resource ('identify a country's deposit-insurance scheme') and enumerates the exact jurisdictions covered, so an agent knows precisely the domain. Sibling tools (health_check, money_fact, pricing_list) don't overlap, so no differentiation is needed.
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?
Usage is implied by the narrow scope, and 'Free, no key' tells the agent no credentials are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to an alternative (e.g., money_fact for related financial facts).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.