Get OECD country comparison data for G7 and major economies. Topics: interest_rates (long-term), trade_balance (current account), cpi (inflation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | interest_rates | trade_balance | cpi | interest_rates |
| countries | No | Comma-separated ISO-3 country codes (default: G7 = USA,CAN,DEU,FRA,GBR,ITA,JPN) | USA,CAN,DEU,FRA,GBR,ITA,JPN |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Given the nature of the tool, a read-only hint would be expected.
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: two sentences front-load the main purpose and list the topics. Every word is relevant, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 simple tool structure (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and topics. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, leaving some gaps for complete agent decision-making.
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?
Although the schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds context by specifying that 'interest_rates' is long-term, 'trade_balance' is current account, and that the data is for G7 and major economies, which adds meaning beyond the schema's enumeration.
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 the resource 'OECD country comparison data for G7 and major economies', listing three specific topics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_global_gdp' and 'get_world_bank_data' which focus on different data sources.
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 usage for OECD country comparison data for the listed topics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct by data source (IMF, OECD, World Bank), but there is overlap in indicators like GDP, which could cause confusion. Descriptions help clarify the focus of each tool.
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_SOURCE_WHAT' pattern using snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools for global economic data from major institutions is reasonable, though slightly minimal given the broad domain.
The tools cover key data sources but lack finer control such as country selection, date ranges, or additional economic indicators, leaving notable gaps.