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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. While the MSN code list adds context, critical behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'offset' parameter) or data freshness are omitted, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting details (MSN codes) in a bulleted list. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific information, though the MSN list is lengthy but necessary for clarity. Minor room for improvement in streamlining the MSN examples.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics for MSN codes well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., response structure, error cases) and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the agent must guess the return format, making this inadequate for full operational understanding.

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 adds value by explaining MSN codes with examples (e.g., 'TETCB: Total energy consumption'), which clarifies the 'msn' parameter's meaning beyond the schema's code list. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'state' or 'length', keeping the score from reaching 5.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('state-level energy data from the State Energy Data System (SEDS)'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the data domain (energy) and geographic scope (state-level). It further elaborates on coverage areas (production, consumption, expenditures, prices) and provides concrete MSN code examples, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not mention sibling tools (e.g., eia_electricity, eia_natural_gas) or other energy-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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