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 describes the tool as a 'Get' operation, implying it is read-only and non-destructive, but does not explicitly confirm this or address other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation, leaving gaps in transparency for safe and effective use.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with specific examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 (retrieving historical events), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It specifies what data is fetched but does not cover behavioral aspects, error cases, or return structure. While adequate for a basic read operation, it leaves significant gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'application_number' documented as 'Application number'. The description does not add any further semantic details about this parameter, such as format examples (e.g., 'US12345678') or validation rules. Since the schema already provides adequate coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with extra value but also does not detract.

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 transaction (prosecution history) events for a patent application.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('transaction events'), and scope ('patent application'), and lists examples of what is included ('office actions, responses, examiner actions, and status changes with dates'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'uspto_application_details' or 'uspto_application_documents', which might also retrieve application-related data, so it misses full differentiation.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. While it implies usage for retrieving prosecution history, it lacks explicit instructions on when to choose this over other USPTO tools, such as for detailed event data versus general application details.

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