Retrieve Turkish CPI inflation data as annual percentage change, sourced from TÜİK via FRED. Specify the number of months (1-120) to get historical inflation rates.
Türkiye TÜFE (Tüketici Fiyat Endeksi) enflasyon verisini döndürür. FRED (St. Louis Fed) üzerinden TÜİK kaynaklı yıllık % değişim verisi sağlanır.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| periods | No | Kaç aylık veri döndürülsün (1-120, default: 12) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source (FRED), the original provider (TUIK), and the metric (annual percentage change), making the behavior reasonably transparent. It does not mention update frequency or data lag, but for a simple read-only data fetch this is a minor 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 two compact sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded first, and the source/metadata detail is placed second, 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?
The description is sufficient for basic invocation: it defines what data is returned and its source. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify the response structure (e.g., date-value pairs), which leaves some ambiguity about what the agent should expect in the result.
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%, and the only parameter, 'periods', is already well documented in the schema with range and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so 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 verb ('returns') and the resource ('Turkey CPI inflation data'), and specifies the exact metric: annual percentage change sourced from TUIK via FRED. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which cover exchange rates, currency conversion, crypto, BIST, and global stocks.
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 usage context is implied by the purpose: use this tool when Turkish CPI inflation data is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.