fred_macro_series_aliasesLists the named macro and liquidity series aliases available in the package, helping agents map friendly names to the correct FRED/ALFRED series IDs.
The named macro/liquidity series aliases this package ships (EH-422).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them — nothing about whether the list is static/curated, whether entries may change between package versions, or whether remote calls occur (relevant given openWorldHint=true).
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?
It is a single short sentence, which is good, but the trailing internal ticket reference '(EH-422)' is noise that consumes attention without informing tool selection.
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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. Still, for an open-world data tool the description leaves unclear what an 'alias' contains and whether it is the intended entry point before calling the observation tools.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.
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?
It implies the tool returns the set of named macro/liquidity series aliases bundled with the package, but never states a verb ('list', 'return') or what an 'alias' is (name→series-ID mapping?). An agent can guess the resource but not the exact output shape from the description alone.
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 call this versus fred_series_observations or fred_series_observations_asof, which the agent would likely need to discover valid series identifiers first. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sequencing hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.