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. The description only states what the tool returns ('shows which agencies are spending the most') without detailing behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary information or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and output structure, which are critical for an agent to effectively invoke the tool. The description only covers basic purpose, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what it returns.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'keyword' interacts with 'award_type' or default behaviors). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description offers no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 total federal spending broken down by awarding agency. Shows which agencies are spending the most.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('total federal spending'), and breakdown ('by awarding agency'), making the function evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'usa_spending_by_state' or 'usa_spending_by_recipient', which reduces the score from a 5.

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 mentions what the tool does but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'usa_spending_by_state' or 'usa_spending_by_recipient'. This lack of contextual usage information limits the agent's ability to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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