SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Live Texas grid status from ERCOT's public dashboards

energy_ercot_texas_grid_status

Read-only

Live Texas (ERCOT) grid status from ERCOT's public dashboards: frequency, demand, net load, capacity and reserve margin (MW and %), wind, solar and inertia; the latest generation mix by fuel with shares; real-time and day-ahead prices for ERCOT hubs and load zones (USD/MWh); and ERCOT's demand and capacity forecast for the coming hours. Related tools on this server, for a different need: energy_nuclear_reactor_status_pris when you need US nuclear power reactor status from the US Nuclear; energy_nyiso_new_york_grid when you need New York ISO real-time zonal electricity prices. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "energy_ercot_texas_grid_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`forecastHours`	No	Forecast points to include, 0 to 48 (default 12)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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?

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses commercial behavior that no structured field carries: $0.002 in USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged. That is exactly the kind of cost/auth detail an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of stating data freshness/cadence or whether values are a live snapshot, which matters for a 'live status' tool.

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?

The data coverage is front-loaded in one dense clause, followed by the alternatives clause and the pricing clause, so a reader can stop early. The enumeration is list-heavy and could be trimmed (e.g. 'MW and %' details) without losing routing value, but nothing is genuinely redundant.

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, return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile; the description fills the remaining gaps of data coverage, cost, and sibling routing. The residual hole is operational: no statement of update frequency or data latency for a tool marketed as 'live', which leaves an agent unable to judge staleness.

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% and the single optional forecastHours parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'demand and capacity forecast for the coming hours' gives useful context on what that parameter governs, but adds no constraints, defaults, or format detail beyond 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 names a specific operator and region (ERCOT / Texas) and enumerates exactly what is returned: frequency, demand, net load, capacity and reserve margin, wind, solar, inertia, generation mix with shares, hub/load-zone prices, and short-horizon forecasts. An agent can distinguish this from every other grid tool in the sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes to two alternatives with their selection conditions (energy_nuclear_reactor_status_pris for US nuclear reactor status, energy_nyiso_new_york_grid for New York ISO prices), which is real when-to-use guidance. The gap is the unmentioned energy_us_electric_grid_monitor, a sibling that plausibly overlaps with general US grid monitoring, leaving an ambiguity the description does not resolve.

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?