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 support for operations but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response format, or pagination behavior beyond parameter names. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by specific syntax examples. Every sentence provides essential information—no fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function and immediately supports it with practical details.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameter usage well but lacks context on authentication, rate limits, error handling, and response structure. For a query tool with no annotations, it should address more behavioral aspects to be fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of filter and sort syntax ('record_date:gte:2024-01-01', '-record_date'), listing filter operators (eq, gt, etc.), and showing multi-filter formatting. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 specific action ('Query'), target resource ('U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data API'), and core capabilities ('field selection, filtering, sorting, and pagination'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the exact API source rather than other government data sources like BEA, BLS, or Census tools listed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, rate limits, or data availability, nor does it suggest scenarios where this tool is preferred over other fiscal or economic data tools in the sibling list.

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