US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (accumulated stocks, examples of TypeOfInvestment and Component values), which helps the agent understand the tool's output. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps despite the annotations covering safety.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The examples of TypeOfInvestment and Component are useful but could be more streamlined; the list format is clear but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient overall.

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 complexity (data retrieval with multiple parameters), the description is complete enough with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters. It explains the data domain and provides examples to guide usage. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., structure of the data), which is a minor gap for a data-focused 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and default values. The description adds semantic meaning by providing examples of TypeOfInvestment and Component values, which helps interpret the parameters, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('Get', 'Shows') and resources ('U.S. international investment position (IIP) data', 'end-of-period accumulated stocks of U.S. financial assets and liabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like bea_international_transactions by focusing on position data rather than transaction flows, and from bea_dataset_info by providing actual data retrieval rather than metadata.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for IIP data showing accumulated stocks) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings through the examples of TypeOfInvestment. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives for overlapping functionality, such as when to choose this over bea_international_transactions for different data aspects.

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