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 mentions ranking and filtering but does not cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields returned). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get top candidates ranked by total money raised') and includes essential context ('for a given office and election cycle'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and behavioral complexity. It adequately explains the purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage constraints. The high schema coverage helps, but more context is needed for full agent 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 (e.g., 'office' with enum values, 'election_year' format, 'state' as two-letter code, 'per_page' default and limits). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('top candidates'), and ranking criterion ('by total money raised'), along with required filters ('for a given office and election cycle'). It precisely distinguishes its function from sibling tools like 'fec_candidate_financials' or 'fec_search_candidates' by focusing on ranking based on fundraising.

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 implies usage when ranking candidates by fundraising is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'fec_candidate_financials' for detailed financials or 'fec_search_candidates' for broader searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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