opportunity-exchange

investigate_economic_question

Turn a natural-language economic question into an inspectable deterministic plan, resolve governed entities, execute a bounded set of existing OEX graph/data primitives, and return a citation-ready evidence bundle. OEX does not invoke a hosted model or generate a hidden reasoning chain; synthesize only from the returned evidence and limitations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Maximum graph traversal depth; default 2.
`entities`	No	Optional exact entity hints. Use these when a place, business, occupation, sector, signal, or source is not stated unambiguously in the question.
`question`	Yes	The economic question. Do not include personal or confidential information.
`maxEvidenceCalls`	No	Maximum governed evidence calls executed; default 6.
`minimumConfidence`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by revealing that OEX does not invoke a hosted model or hidden reasoning chain, is deterministic, bounded, and synthesizes only from evidence. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not detail return structure or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main workflow and a clarifying limitation. Every phrase earns its place; there is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the high-level orchestration, return type (citation-ready evidence bundle), and a key limitation. It could be more complete by specifying the shape of the plan or guidance on depth/confidence, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'governed entities' and 'bounded' calls, which loosely map to the entities and maxEvidenceCalls parameters, but it does not provide syntax or deeper semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific action verbs ('Turn...resolve...execute...return') and clearly states the resource: a natural-language economic question processed through OEX graph/data primitives. It differentiates from sibling get/query tools by emphasizing an inspectable deterministic plan and a citation-ready evidence bundle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Use is implied for natural-language economic questions, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. The description does not mention alternatives like resolve_entities, query_knowledge_graph, or get_evidence, nor does it specify exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All opportunity-exchange tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are effectively duplicates or near-duplicates: get_emerging_signals is an explicit alias for list_economic_signals, resolve_entity and resolve_entities overlap heavily, and the markdown variants duplicate their non-markdown reports. Pairs like compare_communities/compare_municipalities and search_businesses/search_licensed_businesses also require reading long contracts to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern with sensible verbs like get_, list_, search_, and compare_. The main deviations are the backwards-compatible get_emerging_signals alias and prefix choices such as check_business_health vs get_business_health that obscure the underlying distinction.

Tool Count1/5

70 tools is an extreme surface for any MCP server, far beyond the 25+ 'too many' threshold. The set is fragmented by format variants, aliases, and multiple overlapping lookup tools, making selection and maintenance costly.

Completeness3/5

The domain surface is broad: entity resolution, business health, labour, community economy, procurement, and governance evidence are all covered in depth. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps—no sandbox deletion, consent revocation, health-action cancellation, or actual exchange/connect/apply step—that leave agents with dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?