Get all key statistics for a country. Returns GDP, population, life expectancy, inflation, unemployment, and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_id | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code (e.g., USA, CAN, GBR, CHN, JPN, DEU) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the general behavior (returns multiple statistics) and lists fields, but does not mention time periods, data freshness, or any limitations. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and uses an example list. No wasted words; it is concise and well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, it could be improved by specifying whether data reflects current year or a specific timeframe, and it does not reference sibling tools.
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 input schema fully documents the only parameter (country_id) with a detailed description of ISO codes, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The high schema coverage justifies the baseline score.
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 key statistics for a country and lists specific examples (GDP, population, life expectancy). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_historical_data or compare_countries, so it misses the top score.
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 usage when a country overview is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_historical_data or get_series_data. This is implied usage, not explicit direction.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_historical_data and get_series_data can overlap for monthly series, and compare_countries versus get_indicator_ranking both offer cross-country comparisons. Detailed descriptions mitigate most ambiguity.
All tools use a verb_noun pattern in snake_case, but list-like operations are inconsistently named (e.g., get_available_indicators and get_country_list use get_ while list_series uses list_). Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers discovery (search/list), retrieval (country overview, series), comparison, ranking, and calendar features without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers indicator discovery, country metadata, historical and high-frequency data, comparisons, ranking, and release calendar. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated indicator metadata tool) but core workflows are supported.
