nyiso_load_forecastNYISO (New York) ISO load forecast (ISOLF) for the most recent published day, per zone, MW. Use for "what does NYISO expect demand to be today", forecast-error tracking vs. nyiso_load.
| 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": "CAPITL"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that data is per zone in MW and for the most recent published day, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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?
Two sentences: the first defines the tool's output, the second gives two clear use cases. Extremely concise with no wasted words or redundant information.
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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, comprehensive annotations), the description covers the key aspects. It could have mentioned the output format (e.g., table) but is largely complete for a simple forecast tool.
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?
Both parameters have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new semantics beyond 'per zone' which is already implied by the zone parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 that the tool provides NYISO load forecast for the most recent published day, per zone, in MW. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'nyiso_load' by mentioning forecast vs. actual data.
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 specifies use cases: 'what does NYISO expect demand to be today' and 'forecast-error tracking vs. nyiso_load'. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude other uses.
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.