US Treasury 'Debt to the Penny' record for one date: total public debt outstanding, split into intragovernmental holdings and debt held by the public. $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the per-call cost, the payment protocol (x402, USDC on Base), and the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or data freshness, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and beyond basic parameter info.
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 compact sentences front-load the resource and output, then add cost and response attestation details. There is no filler or repetitive content, and every phrase contributes useful information.
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 with optional parameters, the description is close to adequate, but it leaves the start/end ambiguity unresolved and lacks an output schema to clarify return fields. An agent could still make a reasonable call, but the 'for one date' phrasing versus the optional date-time range parameters is a real gap.
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 only 33%: only the payment parameter has a description in the schema. The description does not explain the semantics of start and end parameters or how they map to 'one date.' This is a meaningful gap because an agent cannot confidently construct a correct request without knowing whether to pass start=end, a range, or neither.
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 (US Treasury Debt to the Penny record) and the specific data it returns: total public debt split into intragovernmental holdings and debt held by the public. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'fetch', but the meaning is unambiguous and the domain distinguishes it from the sibling tools.
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 use case is implied: get a Treasury debt record for a single date. It also communicates the payment requirement via x402. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and it does not clarify whether this tool is preferred over a broader dataset or how the optional start/end parameters should be used to target one date.
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 unique dataset and operation: lookups by ID, summary aggregations, time series, or search. Even tools with similar descriptors (e.g., FMRArea lookup vs. search, FDA vs. CPSC recalls) are clearly separated by resource and output type.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a `domain_resource_kind` pattern such as `fda_recall_lookup` and `cpsc_recall_monthly_summary`. A few outliers like `bank_profile_lite`, `cpi_us_monthly`, and `us_debt_to_penny` break the dominant suffix convention but remain readable.
24 tools is on the high side for a single server, but this appears to be an aggregator of many independent public datasets, so each tool represents a distinct data source and has a purpose. It is slightly above the ideal ergonomic range but not bloated or redundant.
As a read-only attested-data lookup service, the set provides good coverage with both point lookups and aggregate summaries across many domains. The main gaps are the lack of a catalog/discovery endpoint and search support for most identifier-based lookups, but agents can work around those with known identifiers.