BPS MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and mentions the data includes value and volume, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the data is real-time/historical. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Data mencakup nilai dan volume perdagangan Indonesia.') could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to add brief usage context without sacrificing efficiency.

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 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose and data scope but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidelines. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context would help an agent use it effectively.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions data is based on HS code and includes value and volume, which aligns with the 'hs_code' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context for 'source', 'hs_type', 'year', or 'period'. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents all parameters adequately.

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: 'Ambil data perdagangan luar negeri (ekspor/impor) berdasarkan kode HS' (Retrieve foreign trade data (export/import) based on HS code). It specifies the resource (foreign trade data) and scope (Indonesia), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_static_table' or 'get_dynamic_data' that might also retrieve trade data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_static_table' or 'get_dynamic_data' that might offer similar data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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