nyiso_loadNYISO (New York) actual zonal load (MW) per 5-minute interval for the most recent published day, by zone (CAPITL, CENTRL, DUNWOD, GENESE, HUD VL, LONGIL, MHK VL, MILLWD, N.Y.C., NORTH, WEST). Use for NY zonal demand analysis, peak-time identification, NYC load profile vs. upstate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to yesterday. | |
| zone | No | Optional zone filter. Default: all 11 zones. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "date": "2024-01-15"
+ },
+ {
+ "date": "2024-01-15",
+ "zone": "N.Y.C."
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that data is per 5-minute interval and for the most recent published day, providing useful temporal context beyond annotations.
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: first explains what the tool returns, second lists zones, third gives use cases. Front-loaded with essential info, no fluff.
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 two simple optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers data granularity (5-min intervals), scope (zonal), and use cases. Could mention number of intervals per day, but not critical.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly listing all valid zone values (CAPITL, CENTRL, etc.) and clarifying that date defaults to yesterday, which the schema also notes but the description reinforces.
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 provides NYISO actual zonal load in MW per 5-minute interval for the most recent published day, listing all 11 zones. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nyiso_fuel_mix and nyiso_lmp_zonal.
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 suggests uses: 'NY zonal demand analysis, peak-time identification, NYC load profile vs. upstate.' While it doesn't list when not to use, the context is clear enough for selection.
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.