Fetch any specific ECB data series by ID. 20 series available: rates, FX, inflation, economy, yields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| series_id | No | Series ID: REFI_RATE, DEPOSIT_RATE, EUR_USD, EA_HICP, EA_GDP, EA_10Y_AAA, etc. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / series_id / enumAdded value: +[
+ "REFI_RATE",
+ "DEPOSIT_RATE",
+ "EUR_USD",
+ "EA_HICP",
+ "EA_GDP",
+ "EA_10Y_AAA"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the fetch action, without disclosing return format, history depth, or behavior for invalid IDs. The claim of '20 series available' contradicts the schema's enum of only 6 IDs, creating confusion.
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 a single concise sentence, but the phrase '20 series available: rates, FX, inflation, economy, yields' is vague and potentially misleading given the schema's limited enum. It could be more precise by listing the exact series IDs or pointing to the schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the returned data looks like and enumerate series IDs, but it does neither. Given the complexity of navigating 30+ sibling tools, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the 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?
The input schema covers the parameter fully with an enum and description. The description adds a high-level categorization of series (rates, FX, etc.) but does not list the actual IDs, and its '20 series' count conflicts with the schema's 6, adding marginal ambiguity rather than clarity.
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 fetches a specific ECB data series by ID, using the verb 'Fetch' and identifying the resource. However, it lacks specificity about which series are available (claims 20 but only lists categories), so it doesn't fully distinguish from category-specific siblings like ecb_rates.
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 use when you know a series ID, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the category-specific sibling tools. It provides no exclusions or alternatives, leaving usage decisions to inference.
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.