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 adds some useful context: it specifies that 'Assets and deposits are in thousands of dollars,' which clarifies data units. However, it lacks details on critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination defaults (beyond what the schema implies). For a search tool with no annotations, this is a moderate but incomplete effort.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The subsequent sentences provide filtering examples and a key data unit clarification without redundancy. However, the example filters are somewhat dense and could be structured more clearly, slightly affecting readability.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, filterable fields, and data units, but lacks output format details, error handling, or usage context. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return structure, but it does not, leaving gaps in contextual 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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing filterable fields (e.g., state, name) and providing example filter syntax, but it does not explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond what the schema descriptions cover. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search FDIC-insured banks and savings institutions.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('FDIC-insured banks and savings institutions'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other fdic_* tools like fdic_failures or fdic_financials), which would be required for a score of 5.

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 lists filterable fields (e.g., state, name, charter type) and provides example filters, but it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., fdic_summary or fdic_financials), leaving usage context implied at best.

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