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 mentions it's for comparison but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it returns raw data, aggregated statistics, or visualizations; any rate limits; error handling; or authentication needs. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 complexity of comparing multiple countries over time, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., table, JSON, time series), how missing data is handled, or any limitations (e.g., indicator availability). For a tool with three parameters and comparative analysis, more context is needed.

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 three parameters (indicator code, semicolon-separated ISO2 country codes, and year range with default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of indicator codes or valid date formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Compare a World Bank indicator across multiple countries.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('World Bank indicator'), and scope ('across multiple countries'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'wb_indicator' (which likely fetches data for a single country) and 'wb_search' (which searches for indicators).

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Great for "How does US compare to..." questions.' This gives a clear, concrete example of when to use this tool, helping the agent understand its ideal context. It implies this tool is for comparative analysis rather than single-country lookups or indicator searches.

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