NatGasLens — US Natural Gas & Henry Hub Data

get_us_lng_feedgas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Daily LNG feedgas for US liquefaction terminals (Bcf/d) — the export pull on the domestic natural gas balance, nowcast from pipeline nominations on the terminals' electronic bulletin boards (split across operators, no single public source). Returns today's total with a regime label (loose / below_normal / normal / tight) measured against nameplate capacity and the 30-day mean, utilization, and the daily history. Pro scope adds the per-terminal breakdown, the measured-vs-estimated split and movers — who drove the change versus yesterday. Demo scope returns the same fields, breakdown included, as of a week ago.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`history_days`	No	How many days of daily feedgas history to return (1-400).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asof`	No
`data`	No
`note`	No
`tool`	No
`scope`	No
`stale`	No
`disclaimer`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints in annotations, the description adds critical behavioral details: nowcast from pipeline nominations, lack of single public source, regime label calculation, and Pro vs Demo scope differences, with no contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and output, but is somewhat verbose, including scope details that could be separated. Nonetheless, it is well-structured and each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields. It adequately covers purpose, key outputs (regime, utilization, history), and scope differences, though slightly more detail on the regime thresholds could help.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter history_days, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the resource (US LNG feedgas), metric (Bcf/d), and context (export pull on domestic natural gas balance), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on prices, storage, or outages.

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?

The description implies usage for obtaining daily feedgas data with regime labels and scope differences, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_us_lng_plant_outages.

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

All NatGasLens — US Natural Gas & Henry Hub Data 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of natural gas data: fundamental score, production nowcast, and storage nowcast. There is no functional overlap, and agents can easily differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'get_us_natural_gas_<specific_measure>' pattern, using snake_case and clear descriptive names. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools cover key indicators for natural gas monitoring. While the set is concise, it avoids bloat and each tool adds significant value. A slight increase might be justified, but the current count is appropriate for the focused scope.

Completeness4/5

The tools provide core supply and demand indicators (production, storage, and a composite score incorporating demand). Minor gaps like a separate demand tool exist, but the composite score partially addresses them, making the surface fairly complete for monitoring purposes.

Resources

Need Help?