World Bank time series for a single indicator and country. Common indicator IDs: NY.GDP.MKTP.CD (GDP USD), FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG (CPI yoy), SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS (unemployment), SP.POP.TOTL (population). Use wb_search_indicator if you don't know the ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ISO 2/3-letter code OR common name (e.g. 'India', 'IN', 'IND'). | |
| year_to | No | ||
| indicator | Yes | World Bank indicator ID, e.g. 'NY.GDP.MKTP.CD'. | |
| year_from | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns time series data but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. For a read-like operation, more transparency is needed.
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-loading the purpose and providing immediate value with examples and sibling tool referral. Every sentence is essential, and there is no redundancy.
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?
Given four parameters (two required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and usage guidance but omits details on year range parameters, output format, error handling, and potential constraints. Adequate but not fully complete for autonomous use.
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 50% (two of four parameters described). The description adds value by listing common indicator IDs and clarifying country input format, but it does not explain the year_from and year_to parameters. This partially compensates for missing schema descriptions, but not fully.
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 a World Bank time series for a single indicator and country. It provides example indicator IDs and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool wb_search_indicator by directing users there if they don't know the ID.
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 explicitly recommends using wb_search_indicator for unknown IDs, giving clear usage context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for multiple countries or indicators, use compare_countries instead), so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: two for World Bank (indicator fetch and search), two for FRED (series fetch and search), and one for cross-country comparison. No overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a source_prefix_action pattern (wb_indicator, wb_search_indicator, fred_series, fred_search_series), but compare_countries breaks the pattern by lacking a source prefix, creating minor inconsistency.
With 5 tools covering two major macroeconomic data sources, the count is appropriate. Each tool serves a necessary function without being excessive or insufficient.
The server provides basic search and retrieval for both World Bank and FRED, plus cross-country comparison. Missing features like metadata listing or FRED-specific comparison are minor gaps that don't severely hinder core workflows.