SiteCheck Trade & Energy

US Drought Monitor county statistics for one US county

energy_drought_monitor_us_crop

Read-only

US Drought Monitor county statistics for one US county (5-digit FIPS) and one weekly map date: percent of the county's area in no drought and in drought categories D0 (abnormally dry) to D4 (exceptional), from the USDM public API. County level only; crop-specific indices are not included. Related tools on this server, for a different need: energy_us_electric_grid_monitor when you need US electric grid monitor from EIA's Hourly Electric Grid; energy_usda_wasde_crop_reports when you need USDA WASDE figures for one commodity and region. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fips": "<fips>"
    },
    "name": "energy_drought_monitor_us_crop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	USDM map date YYYY-MM-DD (a Tuesday); default: the most recent Tuesday
`fips`	Yes	5-digit US county FIPS code, e.g. 48201 (Harris County, TX)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fips`	No
`state`	No
`county`	No
`source`	No
`mapDate`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`percentOfAreaPct`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the upstream source (USDM public API) and a concrete cost model — $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls not charged. That payment/charging detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It doesn't mention rate limits, update cadence, or data latency, keeping it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the tool's identity and returned fields, then boundaries, then alternatives, then price — a sensible order. The two-sibling list is slightly verbose for a description, but each clause carries routing 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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, source, cost, and sibling routing. Minor gaps remain (update cadence, whether the date must be a Tuesday in the past, geographic limits beyond 'US county'), but nothing blocking for a 2-parameter read call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the Tuesday convention and the default. The description restates '5-digit FIPS' and 'one weekly map date' but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: US Drought Monitor county statistics for one US county FIPS and one weekly map date, with the exact metrics returned (percent area in no drought and D0–D4). It also draws the boundary 'County level only; crop-specific indices are not included,' which is essential given the tool name contains 'crop'.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away for other needs, naming energy_us_electric_grid_monitor and energy_usda_wasde_crop_reports with the condition that selects each. It also states an exclusion (no crop-specific indices). It stops short of saying when NOT to use this tool for drought data (e.g., non-US or non-county geography), so not quite a full 5.

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

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?