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 states what the tool does (get prices) but lacks behavioral details such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential context about commodity scope. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and scope but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets the bare minimum.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the commodity parameter's flexibility ('any commodity') and providing examples, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 prices received by farmers for agricultural commodities.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('prices'), and provides examples of applicable commodities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as all siblings appear to be from different data domains (BEA, BLS, CDC, etc.), making direct comparison less relevant.

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 context by stating 'Works for any commodity: CORN, WHEAT, SOYBEANS, CATTLE, MILK, etc.' This suggests when to use it (for agricultural price data) but doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is given on when not to use it or how it compares to other price-related 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.