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 filtering and sorting capabilities but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (especially important with no output schema). The description provides some context but misses key operational transparency.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and basic usage well, but lacks behavioral transparency and output information that would be crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves significant gaps.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning CERT filtering as an example and implying date-based sorting, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or parameter interactions beyond what's in the schema. 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 institution event history') and resources ('mergers, acquisitions, name changes, charter conversions'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on FDIC banking history rather than BEA, BLS, or other datasets. It explicitly mentions filtering by CERT number for specific bank tracing.

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 ('to trace a specific bank's history' with CERT filtering), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes. It implies usage for FDIC institution history queries.

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