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 discloses that the tool returns specific fields (dataset name, data table name, etc.), which adds useful context beyond basic listing. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 key information (what it lists and returns) with zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying counts, resources, and return fields clearly.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for its purpose and output format. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential limitations like data freshness or usage constraints, which are relevant for a listing tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the parameter-less design.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('all 53 U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data API datasets and their 181 endpoints'), and scope ('Returns dataset name, data table name, API endpoint path, and description'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_datasets' by specifying it lists all datasets without filtering.

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 for retrieving a complete list of Treasury datasets and endpoints, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_datasets' or other dataset-related tools. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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