FBI Crime Data

compare_state_crime

Compare crime rates across multiple US states for a single year.

Fetches crime estimates for each state and returns them side by side
for easy comparison. Useful for grant narratives requiring regional context.

Args:
    states: Comma-separated two-letter state abbreviations (e.g. 'CA,TX,NY').
    crime_type: Type of crime to compare. Options: violent-crime, property-crime,
        burglary, larceny, motor-vehicle-theft, homicide, robbery,
        aggravated-assault. Default: violent-crime.
    year: The year to compare (default 2022).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`year`	No
`states`	Yes
`crime_type`	No	violent-crime

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses core behaviors: 'Fetches crime estimates for each state and returns them side by side.' This clarifies that it is a read-only aggregation. However, it omits potential edge cases, data source caveats, or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence behavior, a one-sentence use case, and a clear Args block. No filler or redundant information; every 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?

The description is thorough for a three-parameter tool with an output schema. It covers the purpose, use case, and all parameter semantics. Minor gaps like not explicitly stating a minimum of two states or handling invalid inputs are not critical given the output schema and simple read-only nature.

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?

The input schema provides only titles with no descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It details each parameter: states format ('Comma-separated two-letter state abbreviations (e.g. 'CA,TX,NY')'), crime_type options with a default, and year default. This is a strong supplement to 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 the tool's function: 'Compare crime rates across multiple US states for a single year.' It specifies a distinct scope (multiple states, one year) and a specific verb ('Compare'), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_state_crime_estimates (which likely handles a single state) and get_national_crime_estimates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers usable context: 'Useful for grant narratives requiring regional context' and implies a multi-state comparison. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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

All FBI Crime 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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: national trends, state estimates, state arrests, and multi-state comparison. The overlapping state crime estimate tools are differentiated by single-year multi-state vs multi-year single-state, making confusion unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_state_crime, get_national_crime_estimates, get_state_arrests, get_state_crime_estimates). The use of 'get' for standard queries and 'compare' for the comparative function is predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing FBI crime data. Each tool addresses a fundamental query pattern—national, state, arrests, and comparison—without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the main data access patterns: national trends, state estimates, state arrests, and cross-state comparison. A minor gap is the lack of national-level arrest trends, but the existing tools are sufficient for most core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?