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 implies this is a read operation ('Get'), which suggests it's non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or what 'financial totals' includes (e.g., cash on hand, receipts, disbursements). The description adds basic context about the committee_id requirement but lacks behavioral details like response format or potential errors.

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 clause. Both sentences earn their place: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides essential usage guidance. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple lookup tool. It covers the basic purpose and parameter guidance but lacks details on what 'financial totals' returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but leaves gaps in output expectations.

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 both parameters (committee_id and cycle) with examples. The description mentions committee_id and its source but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining what a 'cycle' represents in FEC context). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('financial totals for a committee'), specifying the types of committees (PAC, campaign, party). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on financial data rather than search or other operations, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'fec_candidate_financials' or 'fec_committee_disbursements'.

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 stating it requires a committee_id and directing users to 'fec_search_committees' to find one. This gives practical guidance on prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., for candidate financials vs. committee financials).

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