evidence_indiaRead the 48-institution Indian construction-PIT crisis diagnostic, including misses and false alarms. Uses publication clocks where present and a +60-day filing-lag proxy otherwise; overwritten amendments are unreconstructable. evidence_institution returns a full replay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral details: publication-clock handling, the +60-day filing-lag proxy, and the unreconstructability of overwritten amendments. These caveats materially shape what the agent can expect from the returned diagnostic.
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?
Three sentences carry distinct value: function and content, data-lag caveat, and sibling routing. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.
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 parameterless read-only tool, the description explains what is returned, the main data caveats, and where to get a fuller replay. It could be more explicit about the output format, but the given details are sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.
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 is empty with no parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4, and no additional parameter information is missing.
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 names a specific resource (the 48-institution Indian construction-PIT crisis diagnostic), states the verb 'read', and lists included content (misses and false alarms). It also distinguishes itself from evidence_institution by noting that sibling returns a full replay.
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 gives context for when this tool is appropriate by scoping it to the India construction-PIT diagnostic and directs users to evidence_institution for a full replay. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus the other regional evidence tools, but the contrast with evidence_institution provides clear routing.
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.