Retrieve metadata for any FRED economic series, including title, units, frequency, date range, and notes. Use this tool to clarify data definitions or validate series details before analysis.
Get metadata for a FRED series — title, units, frequency, range, notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| series_id | Yes | e.g. 'GDP', 'UNRATE', 'CPIAUCSL' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.4.11Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2026.3.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact metadata fields returned, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and lists the fields returned. No wasted words, fully efficient.
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 one-parameter metadata lookup with no output schema, the description lists all returned fields and the parameter is well documented in the schema. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 100% for the single parameter series_id, which includes an example. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a FRED series') and lists the exact fields returned (title, units, frequency, range, notes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fred_series_data (which retrieves data values) and fred_search (which finds series).
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 is for retrieving metadata rather than data, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. An agent can infer from the name and description, but there is no direct comparison to fred_series_data or fred_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.