Get all macro indicators for one African country (ISO-2 code). Nigeria returns the live CBN set: MPR, T-bill, interbank, lending rates, and headline/food/core inflation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ISO-2 country code, e.g. NG, KE, ZA. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety behavior. The description adds context about the Nigeria-specific response (listing indicators like MPR, T-bill, etc.), which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error handling or response format. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then a concrete example. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or padding. 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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and gives a specific example. However, it does not detail the return format or mention that indicator sets may vary by country, which would be helpful. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'country', which already describes it as an ISO-2 code with examples. The tool description reinforces this with 'ISO-2 code' and the Nigeria example, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is justified.
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's function: 'Get all macro indicators for one African country (ISO-2 code).' It specifies a specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_african_policy_rates by focusing on comprehensive macro indicators for a single country. The Nigeria example further clarifies expected content.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description suggests the tool is for retrieving macro indicators for one country, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_macro_history or get_african_policy_rates, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about alternatives.
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.
Tools are largely distinct in purpose, with clear resource-specific patterns like get_african_exchange_stocks vs get_ngx_all_stocks. Some overlap exists between generic African tools and NGX-specific convenience wrappers (e.g., get_market_open_status vs get_ngx_market_status), and get_african_policy_rates overlaps with get_country_macro_indicators on inflation/policy rate data, but descriptions clarify these boundaries.
All tools follow a consistent get_<domain>_<object> snake_case pattern, with plural/singular used appropriately (e.g., get_african_exchanges vs get_african_exchange). No mixed conventions or vague generic verbs—every name clearly signals its resource.
At 21 tools, the server is on the heavier side but within the 16-25 borderline zone. Each tool addresses a distinct data need for the broad African-markets domain, though some redundancy from NGX-specific wrappers (e.g., get_ngx_market_status vs get_market_open_status) could be trimmed.
The server covers a wide range of market data: exchanges, indices, stocks, FX, macro indicators, yield curves, and bank data. Minor gaps include lack of single-stock price/history for non-NGX exchanges and limited historical data beyond Nigeria's macro series, but core market-analysis workflows are well supported.
