Public Data Ukraine Mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as reliance on external service (OpenStreetMap Nominatim), rate limits, error handling for invalid addresses, or data freshness. Only output format is mentioned.

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?

Description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information, but could be more efficient by integrating output format into first sentence.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers basic input/output but lacks usage guidance, error scenarios, and constraints. It is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for robust usage.

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?

The single parameter 'address' has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not clarify required format, components, or restrictions beyond 'Ukrainian address'. The primary focus is on output, not input semantics.

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's verb (Geocode), resource (Ukrainian address), and output (coordinates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_exchange_rates or get_weather_ukraine by specifying geographic and functional context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor any alternatives. The purpose implies geocoding of Ukrainian addresses, but prerequisites or constraints (e.g., address must be in Ukraine) are not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states the return structure {rates, date, source}, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only, idempotent operation or any potential side effects, leaving room for slight ambiguity.

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 short sentences: first states purpose, second provides parameter format and return structure. Every word earns its place; no superfluous content.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description completely covers what an agent needs: purpose, parameter format, and return format. No gaps remain.

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?

The schema only defines the 'date' parameter as string|null with no description. The description adds significant meaning: 'date format: YYYYMMDD or None for today.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves official NBU exchange rates. The verb 'Get' and resource 'exchange rates' are specific. Siblings like geocode_ukraine, get_weather_ukraine, etc., are clearly distinct.

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 provides the date format and default behavior (None for today). While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the simplicity and distinct sibling names make the usage clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Open-Meteo), authentication requirement (none), and return fields. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or city name format.

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 concise sentences: one for purpose and source, one for return format. No redundant or vague phrasing. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, auth, and return fields. It would benefit from mentioning city format, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the city must be Ukrainian, providing some context beyond the schema's bare type string. It does not specify format (language, case), which could be ambiguous.

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 'Get current weather for Ukrainian city', which directly matches the tool name and identifies the specific resource (Ukrainian city). Sibling tools like geocode_ukraine, get_exchange_rates, health_check, search_prozorro_tenders are clearly distinct in purpose.

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 implies when to use: for current weather in Ukrainian cities. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the narrow scope and sibling tool differentiation make usage clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It fails to explain what a 'health check' means, whether it performs a read-only status query, makes external calls, requires authentication, or what side effects might occur. This leaves the agent completely in the dark regarding tool behavior.

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 extremely concise at four words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It conveys the essential topic but lacks the contextual depth expected of a tool description, making it minimally acceptable.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description should at least clarify what the health check reports (e.g., status code, latency, uptime). It does not, so the description is incomplete for an agent to predict the tool's response or behavior.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter-level semantics. The schema already indicates no parameters, and the description provides no additional details, but since there are no parameters, there is nothing to explain.

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 'Server health check' is a noun phrase that communicates the general purpose but lacks a specific verb or detail on what exactly the check entails. It distinguishes from sibling text-analysis tools but essentially restates the tool name with minimal added meaning.

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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. Description only shows return format but no details on behavior like rate limits, pagination, or side effects. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Short and front-loaded but lacks essential details. Could be more informative while still concise.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description omits important context like limit behavior, pagination, or result ordering. Incomplete.

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 0%; description does not explain 'keyword' or 'limit' beyond the schema. No added meaning for 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?

Clearly states verb 'Search', resource 'Ukrainian public procurement tenders on Prozorro'. Siblings are unrelated tools, so no confusion.

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 over alternatives or when not to use it. Lacks context for when to invoke.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.