NatGasLens — US Natural Gas & Henry Hub Data

get_us_natural_gas_pressure_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Our reading of every US natural gas fundamental in one call: for each factor — LNG feedgas, LNG plant outages, weather-model shifts, the EIA weekly injection pace, the composite fundamental score and its 30-day trend, power burn against normal and NOAA cooling demand — the direction of pressure on Henry Hub (bullish / bearish / neutral), its strength (moderate / strong), the number driving it with the thresholds used, and a plain-English sentence. Ends with an overall roll-up: the score, the signals pushing it down and up with their contributions, and any strong factor sitting outside the score. Direction is the sign of a deviation from normal, not a probability that price moves. Demo scope returns the same shape on delayed data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds detail beyond annotations, explaining the output includes direction, strength, and plain-English sentences. It clarifies that direction is deviation from normal, not price probability. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single long sentence with many clauses, making it dense and somewhat run-on. It front-loads the main purpose but could be more concise and structured.

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 complexity and multiple factors listed, no parameters, and presence of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies as description does not need to add parameter info.

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 it provides a summary of US natural gas fundamentals, listing specific factors and their impact on Henry Hub. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_us_lng_feedgas or get_us_natural_gas_storage_nowcast by being a comprehensive roll-up.

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 a comprehensive overview but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions demo scope but no alternatives or exclusions.

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?