GDP, CPI, unemployment, trade data via World Bank API. Multi-year time series.
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": "economic_indicators"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | ISO code e.g. US | |
| indicator | No | e.g. NY.GDP.MKTP.CD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With empty annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It only mentions 'multi-year time series' but does not explain read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The brevity leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by starting with an action verb like 'Retrieve' to improve scanability.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details about return format, time series granularity, or limitations. It does not fully prepare the agent for interpreting results.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by mentioning example indicators (GDP, CPI) and implies ISO country codes, but does not specify expected formats or enumeration. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters.
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 explicitly lists the types of economic indicators (GDP, CPI, unemployment, trade data) and the data source (World Bank API), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fred_series by specifying a different provider.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as fred_series or nedbalk for similar data. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where the tool is inappropriate.
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.