list_econ_sourcesList the Econ Data Library's sources (309: statistical offices, central banks, IGOs, research datasets) with their licenses. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contains | No | Case-insensitive filter on source id/name, e.g. 'bank' or 'imf' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. However, the description adds no further behavioral context beyond listing and including licenses. It does not disclose potential issues like pagination, rate limits, or caching behavior. With minimal added value, a score of 2 is appropriate.
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 sentence that gets to the point quickly. The phrase 'Free.' seems tacked on but does not detract significantly. It is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Minor structural improvement possible.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It provides the count, types, and licenses. It lacks details on output format, but that is acceptable given no output schema. Adequate for the tool's 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 description coverage is 100% for the one parameter 'contains', which includes a description and an example. The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Econ Data Library's sources', specifies the scope (309 sources of types like statistical offices, central banks, IGOs, research datasets) and mentions licenses. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_econ_series' and 'get_econ_series', which focus on series, not sources.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'Free', which is not a usage guideline. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or links to sibling tools.
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 resource/action: auth status, freshness, econ series, metadata, family status, HF/IP download links, dictionaries, source listings, and search. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for retrieving specific items, list_* for enumerations, search_* for queries. Naming is uniform and predictable.
11 tools is well-scoped for a data library server covering multiple domains (econ, HF, IP) with retrieval, metadata, listings, and status checks. No redundancy or excessive granularity.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle for a read-only data service: status/auth, search, retrieval (via download links), metadata, variable dictionaries, and source listings. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.