US Government Open Data MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions price types and process codes but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the data returns, whether there are rate limits or authentication requirements, or how errors are handled. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and lists price types, while the second provides process codes. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter details).

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter mapping but lacks information about return values, error handling, rate limits, or usage context. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing process codes (PRS, PRP, PRC, PRI, PRR, PNG) which correspond to the 'process' parameter, but this information is already covered in the schema's description. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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: 'Get natural gas prices' followed by specific price types (Henry Hub spot price, citygate, residential, commercial, industrial, electric power). It provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('natural gas prices'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eia_electricity' or 'eia_petroleum' beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists price types and process codes, but does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or contextual factors that would help an agent decide between this and other EIA or energy-related tools.

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