treasury_debtCheck current US national debt with historical data points. Returns total public debt outstanding over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of records to return (default 10) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of records returned | |
| records | Yes | National debt records | |
| description | Yes | Description of the data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of records returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Description of the data",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "records": {
+ "description": "National debt records",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "debt_held_by_public": {
+ "description": "Debt held by the public",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "intragovernmental_holdings": {
+ "description": "Intragovernmental debt holdings",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "record_date": {
+ "description": "Date of the record",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total_public_debt_outstanding": {
+ "description": "Total public debt outstanding",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "description",
+ "count",
+ "records"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 20
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOperation, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about returning historical data points, which is mildly helpful but adds little beyond what annotations and schema imply.
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?
Single sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is functional; no unnecessary detail.
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, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return value and historical nature, though no mention of date ranges or edge cases.
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 clear description for the 'limit' parameter. Description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full coverage.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'check' and resource 'US national debt' with historical data points. The tool name and context distinguish it from sibling treasury tools, but no explicit differentiation is provided.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as treasury_avg_interest_rates or treasury_receipts. Lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
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.