NatGasLens — US Natural Gas & Henry Hub Data

get_us_natural_gas_weather_models

Read-onlyIdempotent

Weather forecasts that drive US natural gas demand: 7-day population-weighted CONUS cooling and heating degree days from the GFS and ECMWF runs, the change versus the previous day's run, the GFS-ECMWF spread, the per-day degree-day profile, and the latest NOAA CPC forecast revision with its percentile. Full data on both scopes.

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the data content (e.g., change versus previous day, GFS-ECMWF spread) beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded, covering the purpose and data details efficiently.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (degree days, profiles, forecasts) without needing further elaboration.

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

Parameters5/5

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

There are zero parameters in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description compensates by detailing the specific data fields returned, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 weather forecasts driving US natural gas demand, listing specific data points (cooling/heating degree days, GFS, ECMWF, CPC). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on weather models rather than other data like Henry Hub or LNG.

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 weather data affecting natural gas demand, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.

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?