Public Data Ukraine Mcp

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

No annotations provided; description lists return fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limiting, required permissions, error handling, or that it uses an external service.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields. No 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?

Tool has 1 param, no output schema, no annotations. Description is too brief; missing address format, geographic scope clarification (Ukraine only?), and behavior details.

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%. Description does not clarify expected address format or provide examples, leaving the parameter underspecified.

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?

Specific verb 'geocode', resource 'Ukrainian address', and underlying service 'OpenStreetMap Nominatim' clearly stated. Distinct from siblings like get_weather_ukraine and search_prozorro_tenders.

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?

Implied usage for geocoding Ukrainian addresses, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The name suggests a geographic restriction, but 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 carries full burden. It reveals the return structure ({rates, date, source}), indicating a read operation, but does not mention any potential side effects, authorization needs, or error handling. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, specifying the date format, and outlining the return structure. No unnecessary words are present.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, date format, and return structure. However, it lacks detail on which exchange rates are returned (e.g., specific currencies) and how errors are handled, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the date parameter format ('YYYYMMDD or None for today'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's anyOf type and default null. This helps the agent correctly format the input.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('official NBU exchange rates'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like geocode_ukraine and get_weather_ukraine, which are unrelated.

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), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since siblings are unrelated, the context is clear, but there is no exclusion guidance.

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, so description carries burden. Describes service (Open-Meteo, free, no auth) and return format, but does not mention caching, data freshness, or failure behavior. Safe read operation is implied.

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, front-loaded with purpose and service, then return fields. No extraneous 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?

Adequate for a simple weather tool given no output schema and single param. Lacks prerequisites or integration hints with sibling geocode_ukraine, and no error handling details.

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 0%, yet description adds minimal meaning to 'city' parameter beyond its name. Does not specify expected format (e.g., city name vs. ID) or accepted values.

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?

Clear verb 'get', resource 'weather for Ukrainian city', and differentiates from siblings like geocode_ukraine and get_exchange_rates. Specifies free, no-auth service.

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?

Implies use for weather queries on Ukrainian cities, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or relation to sibling geocode_ukraine. No guidance on city name format or error handling.

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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name without explaining side effects, authentication needs, or what constitutes a healthy response.

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 short and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, it is too brief and could include more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 could be complete by explaining the meaning of a health check result. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without guidance on expected 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is complete. The description does not add any parameter semantics, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 purpose as a server health check, using a verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity to distinguish it from any other health check tool, though sibling tools are unrelated.

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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or scenarios for appropriate use.

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 bears full responsibility. It does not mention that searches are read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or consequences of calling the tool. The return structure is listed but not other behavioral traits.

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 very short (two lines), but it is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it omits essential information like parameter details, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 output schema, low parameter description coverage, and no annotations, the description should compensate. It fails to explain parameter behavior, error conditions, or return value semantics beyond a bare structure. For a simple tool with 2 params, this is insufficient.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation of the parameters 'keyword' or 'limit'. It only lists the return format, which does not clarify what each parameter controls.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'Ukrainian public procurement tenders', and the platform 'Prozorro'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (geocode_ukraine, get_exchange_rates, etc.) which have unrelated purposes.

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, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The context signals show siblings are unrelated, so the description misses an opportunity to clarify its niche.

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