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. It mentions the data scope and filter capabilities but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). It does not contradict any annotations, but could be more informative about operational constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key data fields and filter options in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and basic usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or performance limits. It is adequate for a read-only query tool but could be more complete to fully guide an agent without annotations.

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 some context by mentioning filter examples (state and year range) and implying filtering via the 'filters' parameter, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema descriptions offer. 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 explicitly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('FDIC-insured bank failures'), specifies the temporal scope ('all failures since 1934'), and lists key data fields included. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its many siblings, which are unrelated to FDIC failures (e.g., BEA, BLS, CDC tools).

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 by describing filter options ('Filter by state... by year range, or combine filters'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., other FDIC tools like fdic_summary or fdic_financials), though those siblings are not directly overlapping in purpose.

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