subdivisionsPublished state/province readings inside one country, ranked by price, with each subdivision measured against its own country (vsCountryPct).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose key behavior: returned readings are ranked by price and each subdivision is compared to its country via vsCountryPct. However, it does not explain the sort direction, data freshness, pagination, or any access constraints, leaving important behavior undeclared.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the core idea of subdivision readings before adding ranking and comparison details. Minor awkwardness from the passive 'Published' phrasing keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the key output semantics: country scope, price ranking, and the vsCountryPct comparison. It does not describe the exact response envelope, but no output schema exists and the tool's complexity is low, so the definition is reasonably complete.
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?
The schema already documents the single country parameter with its ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format and length constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only reinforces that this is one country and does not add new parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 identifies the resource as state/province readings within a single country, which makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cities. However, it lacks a direct verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving subdivision-level readings for one country, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to cities, compare, or country_index. An agent must infer the appropriate use case from the name and this single descriptive sentence.
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 targets a distinct geographic level or analytical view, but compare and country_index can both return country-level price rankings, so an agent may need to read the descriptions carefully to choose correctly. Overall, the boundaries are clear enough for most queries.
Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and mostly noun phrases describing the returned view, but compare stands out as a standalone verb. The pattern is still readable and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused data retrieval server. Each tool provides a distinct view—overview, countries, cities, subdivisions, and comparisons—without unnecessary redundancy.
The set covers the full read-only surface of The Omelette Index: global statistics, country rankings and details, city readings with filters, subdivisions by country, and country comparisons. There are no obvious dead ends for typical lookup workflows.