Look up a country's authoritative macro indicator (inflation | gdp_growth) directly — deterministic, offline, cited. Use whenever you need a real macro figure instead of recalling one from memory: give the jurisdiction (CZ, DE, US, ...) and indicator, plus an optional year (omit for the full annual series).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | optional 4-digit year, e.g. 2022 | |
| indicator | Yes | ||
| jurisdiction | Yes | ISO code, e.g. CZ, DE, US |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses key behaviors: deterministic, offline, cited. This helps the agent understand the tool's reliability and side-effect-free nature, though more detail on citations or response format could enhance transparency.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose, behavior, usage, and parameter options with no redundancy. Every part earns its place.
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 lookup tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and key behaviors. Missing return format details, but acceptable given tool simplicity.
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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (year and jurisdiction). Description adds clarity that year is optional and omitting returns full series, but does not explain indicator values beyond enum names. Adequate but not exceptional.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('Look up') and resource ('country's authoritative macro indicator'), specifies indicators (inflation, gdp_growth), and distinguishes from memory recall, making purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('whenever you need a real macro figure instead of recalling one from memory') and provides parameter guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from siblings makes this less critical.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: text analysis (detect_tensions, extract_assumptions), retrieval of published foresight (get_public_report, etc.), listing available resources (list_countries, list_public_spaces), searching (search_spaces), and macro claim resolution (resolve_country_claim). Even similar-sounding tools like detect_tensions and get_public_tensions are clearly differentiated by purpose (user-provided text vs. published analysis).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: detect_tensions, extract_assumptions, get_country_indicator, get_public_report, get_public_scenarios, get_public_tensions, list_countries, list_public_spaces, resolve_country_claim, search_spaces. The verbs are specific and the nouns are descriptive, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With 10 tools, the server covers its domain—strategic foresight and macro indicators—without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is appropriate for the scope: text analysis, resource listing, retrieval, search, and claim resolution. There is no unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers the core workflows: analyzing user-provided strategy text, retrieving published foresight reports/scenarios/tensions, listing available spaces and countries, searching, and resolving macro claims. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to retrieve a specific extracted assumption (though extraction is stateless by design). Overall, the surface is largely complete for a public-facing server.
