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 'standardized financial data extracted from 10-K and 10-Q filings' and lists common XBRL concepts, which adds useful context about data sources and output format. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key details in bullet-like form without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, such as requirements, usage tips, and examples.

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's complexity (financial data extraction), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by specifying data sources (SEC XBRL filings, 10-K/10-Q), providing parameter guidance, and listing common concepts. However, it could be more complete by detailing output structure or error cases, but it compensates well with practical usage information.

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 (cik and metric) well. The description adds value by explaining that the metric parameter retrieves 'Specific XBRL concept' and provides examples (e.g., 'Revenues', 'NetIncomeLoss'), and notes that omitting it 'get a summary of available key metrics.' This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical 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 tool's purpose: 'Get financial data (revenue, net income, assets, etc.) from SEC XBRL filings for a company.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('financial data'), source ('SEC XBRL filings'), and scope ('for a company'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sec_company_search, which is for looking up filings first.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Requires CIK number. Use sec_company_search to look up filings first.' It states a prerequisite (CIK number) and names an alternative tool (sec_company_search) for when to use it, offering clear context for when to use this tool versus others.

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