Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the browsing behavior and the different browse_type options, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., pagination details beyond limit/offset). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the overall purpose, and the second sentence lists the browse_type options with clear explanations for each. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand 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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It effectively covers the browse_type parameter and overall purpose, but it lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more context on what to expect from the results would be beneficial.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of browse_type options (e.g., 'categories' explores the category tree, 'category_series' gets all series in a category), which clarifies their purpose beyond the schema's enum list. However, it doesn't provide additional context for other parameters like order_by or sort_order.

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: 'Browse FRED's complete catalog through categories, releases, or sources.' It specifies the verb 'browse' and the resource 'FRED's catalog,' and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on browsing rather than getting specific series (fred_get_series) or searching (fred_search).

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 explicit usage guidance by listing the five possible browse_type values and explaining when to use each (e.g., 'categories' to explore the category tree, 'category_series' to get all series in a category). This helps the agent choose the right option based on the user's intent, effectively distinguishing it from alternative approaches.

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