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 filtering options but does not describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only query (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, ranking criteria). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently adds filtering guidance, making every sentence earn its place.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), output format, and deeper usage context. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 5 parameters with descriptions and constraints. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'state and agency filters' but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., how filters interact, default behaviors beyond 'fiscal_year' and 'limit'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the top recipients (companies, organizations) of federal spending.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('top recipients'), and scope ('federal spending'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'usa_spending_by_agency' or 'usa_spending_by_state', which focus on different breakdowns of spending data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 some usage context: 'Use state and agency filters to narrow results.' This implies when to apply filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'usa_spending_by_agency' for agency-level data) or mention prerequisites like data availability. It offers basic guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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