US Government Open Data MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a data retrieval operation ('Get'). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data is annual (not real-time), mentions BEA's constraint on parameter combinations, and references another tool for value discovery. However, it doesn't detail response format, pagination, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet points for parameter details efficiently, though some repetition with the schema exists. Every sentence adds value, such as the IMPORTANT constraint and tool reference, making it concise overall with minimal waste.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, critical constraints, and parameter guidance, compensating for the lack of output schema by implying data retrieval. However, it doesn't describe the response structure or potential errors, leaving a minor gap in completeness for an agent invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats some parameter information (e.g., default values and examples for TypeOfService, TradeDirection, Affiliation) but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond what's in the schema. It does clarify the constraint on 'All' for TypeOfService and AreaOrCountry, which is useful but not extensive parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('U.S. international trade in services data (annual)'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bea_dataset_info' by focusing on trade data retrieval rather than metadata discovery, and from other BEA tools by specifying the services trade domain.

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 explicit usage rules: it states the tool is for annual data, highlights a critical constraint ('BEA requires either a specific TypeOfService or a specific AreaOrCountry. You cannot use 'All' for both simultaneously'), and references 'bea_dataset_info' as an alternative for discovering parameter values. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool effectively.

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