Get GDP by metropolitan statistical area from BEA (MAGDP1 table).
Returns all-industry GDP for an MSA. When year is omitted,
returns the last 5 available years.
Args:
msa_code: MSA/CBSA code (e.g. '42660' for Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue).
year: Specific year to retrieve. Omit for last 5 years.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| msa_code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return content (all-industry GDP) and year omission behavior, but lacks details on error handling, data source limitations, or required permissions. No annotations provided to supplement.
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?
Description is very concise with two main sentences plus clear parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.
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?
Covers purpose, parameters, and key behavior (year omission). Output schema handles return format. Lacks comparison to siblings, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions with examples and behavior, which is especially valuable since the input schema has 0% description coverage. Adds meaning beyond names and types.
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 tool retrieves GDP by metropolitan statistical area from a specific BEA table, using a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling county-level 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?
Provides guidance on the year parameter's behavior (omit for last 5 years), but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool versus others.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: get_county_employment, get_county_gdp, get_county_personal_income, get_metro_gdp, and list_available_tables all target different economic metrics or discovery. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Tools consistently use the verb_noun pattern with get_ for data retrieval and list_ for discovery. The minor deviation of list_available_tables instead of get_available_tables is acceptable and does not cause confusion.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing regional economic data. Each tool serves a specific need without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The server covers key county-level indicators and metro GDP, but lacks tools to retrieve data from other tables discovered via list_available_tables. This is a notable gap, though the discovery tool partially mitigates it.