fred-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes based on resource and action, but reverse relationships like get_source_releases vs get_release_sources and the many tag-related variants (e.g., get_related_tags, get_category_related_tags) could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read. Overall, the names and descriptions do an adequate job of disambiguating.
Naming Consistency4/5
The server generally follows a get_<resource>_<detail> pattern with list_ and search_ prefixes for broader operations. However, there are minor inconsistencies such as get_series_updates (a listing operation) and the confusing name get_tags_series (which returns series, not tags) that deviate from the otherwise predictable scheme.
Tool Count2/5
With 31 tools, the server exceeds the typical range and feels heavy. While the FRED API is broad, the tool set could be consolidated, especially the many tag-related and reverse-relationship tools, without losing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of FRED's data model, including series metadata, observations, categories, releases, sources, and tags, as well as search and vintage date functionality. No obvious gaps are apparent for the server's stated purpose.
Average 3.4/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 25, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or side effects. It is consistent with annotations but does not enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose and include a useful example. No extraneous content, though it could have used the space to address parameter semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters and multiple sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the purpose of filtering, sorting, or pagination parameters, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool effectively for varied use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only demonstrates release_id usage. The remaining 9 parameters (limit, offset, order_by, tag_names, etc.) are left completely unexplained, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get tags for series in a FRED release.' It also includes a concrete example with release_id, which clarifies the target resource and distinguishes it from generic tag-listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like get_series_tags or list_tags. The description only gives an example call, with no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or preferred context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose; it does not explain what 'related' means or any ordering or constraints. It adds no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, with one purposeful sentence and a useful example. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and read-only is annotated, the concept of 'related categories' is left ambiguous. Without explaining the nature of the relationship or when to use this tool relative to siblings, the description is insufficient for reliable selection, especially given the many adjacent tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It illustrates category_id usage in the example but does not address realtime_start and realtime_end parameters, their purpose, or defaults. This leaves a significant gap for three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'Get categories related to a FRED category,' and includes an example invocation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_category_children, and 'related' is not precisely defined. The example adds clarity, making the purpose fairly clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The text only provides an example, not the context or selection criteria. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond stating the tool lists releases; it does not disclose that the result is paginated via limit/offset, and the word 'all' is potentially misleading since the default limit is 1000. No contradiction with annotations, but the added behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a brief example, containing no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention pagination, ordering options, or date filtering, leaving significant operational gaps that the output schema does not cover.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain all six parameters. It only offers 'limit=20' as an example, giving minimal insight into that parameter while leaving offset, order_by, sort_order, realtime_start, and realtime_end unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'List all FRED releases of economic data.' The scope qualifier 'all' hints at differentiation from sibling tools like get_release, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_release or list_release_dates. The example 'list_releases(limit=20)' illustrates a call but does not explain the appropriate context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of realtime parameter effects, pagination, or what the response contains. It does not contradict annotations, but also adds little transparency value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is concise and directly illustrative. No unnecessary words or repetition of the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics for realtime_start/realtime_end. For a simple read-only tool it is minimally adequate, but gaps in alternatives and parameter details make it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only illustrates series_id in the example. The parameters realtime_start and realtime_end are completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate more substantially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the categories that contain a FRED series.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the example with series_id='CPIAUCSL' adds concrete clarity. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_category_series, the direction of the relationship (categories containing a series) is clear enough to distinguish from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you have a series_id and want its categories. The example provides a concrete calling pattern. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_category_series for the inverse relationship), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds an example call and the scoping by source_id, which is useful but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or the structure of the returned metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences and a practical example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides an illustrative call, wasting no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the output schema covers return values, but the description leaves the optional realtime parameters unexplained. Given the low parameter coverage and lack of usage guidance, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke with correct optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It explains source_id via the example and 'by source ID', but realtime_start and realtime_end are not mentioned or described, leaving their meaning and usage ambiguous despite having defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get metadata for a FRED source by source ID', which specifies a verb, resource, and key parameter. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_sources or get_source_releases, but the singular 'a FRED source' and 'by source ID' make the purpose clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sources or get_source_releases. The example demonstrates invocation syntax but provides no context about appropriate use cases or criteria for selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds little beyond that. The example is a minor usage hint but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or any other operational nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence plus an example, no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with 7 parameters and zero schema documentation. It fails to provide context on how to use the filtering, ordering, and realtime parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions source_id and limit in an example, leaving offset, order_by, sort_order, realtime_start, and realtime_end unexplained. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List releases published by a FRED source' with a concrete example, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like list_releases by specifying the source-scoped nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_releases or get_release. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning preferred contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds a few behavioral details: optional filtering by tag name, group, or search text, and an example of the required parameter. It does not explain pagination or ordering behavior, which the schema lists, but no contradictions exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler; the example is immediately useful. Front-loaded description of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers only a subset of parameters. However, the output schema and annotations reduce the need for return-value details. The example provides a minimal invocation but details on filters and pagination are missing, leaving a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameter semantics. It explicitly mentions tag_names, tag_group_id, tag_search_text, and demonstrates series_search_text, but leaves limit, offset, order_by, sort_order, and realtime parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get tags associated with a FRED series search' with a concrete example. It clearly identifies the operation and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_series_tags, relying on the 'series search' qualifier, so a strong but not perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tags or get_series_tags. The description only implies a scenario via 'series search' but doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the scope 'within a FRED release' and a usage example, providing some context beyond the annotations. It does not describe pagination, sorting, or tag matching semantics, but the bar is lowered due to annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with an illustrative example, every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately shows a concrete invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters and the schema provides no descriptions, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the meaning of 'related tags', the format of tag_names, or any optional parameter semantics. The output schema exists but does not reduce the need for parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions release_id and tag_names in the example, leaving the other nine parameters (limit, offset, order_by, etc.) unexplained. The example clarifies the required parameters but fails to add meaning for the optional ones.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves related tags for tag(s) within a FRED release, using a specific verb and resource. It includes a concrete example with release_id and tag_names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_release_tags or get_related_tags, though 'within a FRED release' implies a scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The example provides a usage pattern, implying the tool is for finding related tags in a release context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds the ability to search and filter but doesn't describe pagination, result limits, or other runtime behavior. It provides no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus an example, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists and covers return values, the description leaves most parameters and their semantics undocumented. The tool has 9 optional filters, and the description does not explain their meaning or when to use them, making it incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only mentions search_text and limit via example, leaving seven other parameters (offset, order_by, tag_names, sort_order, realtime_end, tag_group_id, realtime_start) unexplained. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists or searches FRED tags with optional filters, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from get_series or other data-fetching tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tag-related tools like search_series_tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for listing or searching tags and provides an example, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_series_tags or get_related_tags, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is understood. The description adds a concrete example but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or data availability. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches transparency significantly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence followed by a clear example. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, making it efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters, an output schema, and a relatively complex API, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the semantics of 'related tags' in the context of a series search, nor does it cover pagination or the use of optional filters. The example helps but is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only illustrates two required parameters (series_search_text and tag_names) through the example. The remaining 9 parameters (limit, offset, order_by, etc.) are left undocumented in the description. While the schema provides defaults and enums, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get related tags for one or more tags matching a FRED series search' with an example invocation, clearly indicating a specific operation on a specific resource. It is a clear verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_series_tags or get_related_tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through an example (series_search_text='gdp', tag_names='usa'), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The example demonstrates a valid scenario, but the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover that. It adds the scoping of 'specific release' and an example, but does not disclose pagination, realtime filtering, or other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a minimal, useful example. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the description is insufficient for a tool with seven parameters and numerous sibling tools. It omits mention of optional filters, default behavior, or how this tool differs from list_release_dates, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly references release_id via the example. Seven parameters such as limit, offset, sort_order, realtime_start, and realtime_end are left unannotated, and the description does not compensate for this gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves release dates for a specific FRED release, with a concrete example. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_release_dates which cover broader release date listings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as list_release_dates or get_release. The example shows invocation but lacks context or exclusions for different use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and open-world hints. The description adds the concept of 'structured layouts' and an example call, but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as how optional parameters affect the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences including an example—without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It provides a basic example but fails to explain optional parameters or when to choose this tool over its many siblings. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters except through the example (release_id). The roles of element_id, observation_date, and include_observation_values are left entirely to the schema, providing no added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves release tables for a FRED release, with a concrete example. It distinguishes from siblings like get_release and get_release_series by specifying 'tables (structured layouts)'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The example implies usage with a release ID, but the description does not differentiate from other release-related tools or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic listing action, such as whether multiple tags are ANDed or ORed, pagination behavior, or any limits. The example is usage, not behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and a compact example. Every word serves a purpose; no filler or redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters and zero schema descriptions, a single sentence plus example is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The matching semantics for tag_names and the meaning of optional parameters are absent, though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only illustrates tag_names and limit through the example, leaving six other parameters (exclude_tag_names, offset, order_by, sort_order, realtime_start, realtime_end) completely unexplained by both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List FRED series matching one or more tags') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tags (which lists tags) and get_series_tags (which gets tags for a series). The example reinforces the core purpose without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case — when you need series filtered by tags — but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_series or get_category_series. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only an example call, with no additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, default limits, or data scope beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a concrete example. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 6 optional parameters and the description explains none of them except incidentally via the example. This makes the tool's full capabilities opaque to an agent, especially optional parameters for ordering and realtime filtering.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only hints at the 'limit' parameter through the example, leaving offset, order_by, sort_order, realtime_start, and realtime_end completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('FRED data sources'), with a clarifying synonym ('providers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_source', which focuses on a single source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the name implies enumeration, the description does not mention that 'get_source' should be used for a single source, nor does it provide any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The example only shows a basic call and does not disclose any side effects or constraints beyond what the annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a clear functional statement and a concrete example. Every word contributes to understanding, and it is front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the tool has 13 parameters, and the description only addresses the two required ones. The meaning of 'related tags' and the behavior of optional filters are not explained. This is inadequate for full correct usage, especially for an AI agent needing to decide on parameter values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides an example for the two required parameters (category_id and tag_names) but does not explain the optional parameters like limit, offset, order_by, or filter_variable. This is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get related tags for tag(s) within a FRED category.' The example with category_id and tag_names reinforces the exact scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_category_tags or get_related_tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context: when you have a FRED category and want related tags for specific tags. The example provides a concrete invocation with required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds context about category scoping and filters, but does not disclose behavioral aspects like pagination defaults (limit=1000, offset=0) or how filter_variable/filter_value work. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence followed by a concrete example. It is front-loaded, uses no unnecessary words, and clearly demonstrates a typical invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 11 parameters and an output schema, but the description offers minimal context. It does not explain filtering mechanics, ordering, pagination, or tag behavior, leaving an AI agent uncertain about how to set parameters correctly. While output schema exists, the description is under-specified for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only provides an example with category_id and limit, and generically references 'optional filters' without explaining which parameters are filters or how they interact. This is insufficient for 11 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('FRED series belonging to a category'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_category_children (which lists child categories) and get_category_tags (which lists tags).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case (list series in a given category) but does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. It says 'with optional filters' but does not contrast with search_series or other list tools. No clear when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to state safety. It adds the contextual detail of how multiple tags are passed (semicolon-separated) via the example. However, it does not disclose pagination defaults, result filtering behavior, or any other behavioral traits beyond the example.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and includes a demonstration example. Every word contributes to clarity, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 10 parameters with 0% schema documentation. The description provides only the required tag_names and no guidance on the optional parameters, pagination, sorting, or how to combine with related tools. This is inadequate for a moderately complex API.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It only illustrates the tag_names parameter via the example and leaves the other 9 parameters (limit, offset, order_by, etc.) completely unexplained. The semicolon separator is implied but not explicitly stated. This minimal coverage is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 tags related to one or more FRED tags.' This is a specific verb-resource pair with scope (FRED tags) and an example (tag_names='usa;gdp') that makes the intent unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_category_related_tags or get_release_related_tags by explicitly targeting FRED tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool via the example but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving it to the agent to infer that this is for tag-to-tag relatedness. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the example, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or return structure. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a concrete example. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 11 parameters and a single required parameter, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's filtering, sorting, or pagination capabilities, nor does it mention what the output represents beyond the general 'series in a release.' The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves many usage scenarios unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only illustrates 'release_id' and 'limit' via the example, leaving the other 9 parameters (offset, order_by, tag_names, filter_variable, etc.) semantically unexplained. The parameter names are self-explanatory to an extent, but the description does not fully compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List FRED series published in a release.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_release_dates' (lists dates) and 'get_release' (gets release details). The example further clarifies the intended call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by providing an example (get_release_series(release_id=10, limit=20)), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds context about search modes (text or series ID) and tag filters but does not disclose pagination limits or default behaviors (e.g., default limit of 1000) beyond what the schema already shows. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a concrete, easy-to-follow example. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is not complete for a tool with 12 parameters and 0% schema coverage. It lacks guidance on pagination (offset/limit behavior), how to use sorting/ordering, realtime date bounds, and the exact semantics of filter_variable/filter_value. The example only shows search_text and limit, leaving an agent uncertain about many valid use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 12 parameters. It explains the role of search_text and mentions 'tag filters' (implying tag_names and exclude_tag_names), but it does not clarify the other 9 parameters like offset, order_by, sort_order, realtime_start/end, filter_variable/filter_value, or search_type beyond a vague 'by text or series ID'. This leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'FRED series', and specifies search by text or series ID with optional tag filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_series (which fetches a known series) and search_series_tags (which searches tags), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for searching series when you have a text query or series ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. There is no 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage context from the wording and example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the example, such as behavior with null category_id or pagination. It does not contradict the annotations, but also does not enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a call example, with no superfluous content. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides a meaningful example. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter with an output schema and read-only annotation, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it omits explanations for the realtime parameters and doesn't address the optional nature of category_id, leaving some usage gaps for a new agent. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example for category_id, giving partial meaning, but realtime_start and realtime_end are completely unexplained. This leaves two of three parameters without semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: "Get child categories for a FRED category," using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_category or get_category_series by specifying the scope of retrieval. The example call adds concrete clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (retrieving child categories) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The example provides context, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this over sibling tools such as get_category_related or get_category_tags.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds an example and scoping to a category, but does not disclose behavior like pagination, filtering defaults, or ordering. It provides minimal extra context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence plus a short example, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 12 parameters and a 0% schema description coverage, but the output schema and annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) provide some context. The description gives the core purpose and an example, but does not explain the many optional parameters or how they interact. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only demonstrates category_id with an example. The other 11 parameters (limit, offset, order_by, tag_group_id, search_text, etc.) are left unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the absence of parameter descriptions, offering only one example for the required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get tags for series in a FRED category' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('tags for series in a FRED category'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_category (category info) or get_category_series (series list). The example with category_id=125 further clarifies the intended call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what it does and gives a concrete example, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_category_related_tags or get_series_tags. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context about optional transformations and filters, along with an example call. However, it does not disclose default limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. It neither contradicts nor deeply extends the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences are used effectively: the first states the core action and capabilities, and the second provides a concrete example. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids any filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description leaves many advanced parameters unexplained, such as realtime_start/end, vintage_dates, output_type, and aggregation_method. The basic use case is well covered, but the full parameter landscape is not addressed. This is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely references 'unit transforms, frequency aggregation, and date filters' without naming most parameters. The example shows series_id and observation_start but ignores 11 other parameters (e.g., units enum, aggregation_method, vintage_dates). This provides only a high-level grouping, insufficient for a 13-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets observations (data values) for a FRED series, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'observations for a FRED series.' It also lists key capabilities (unit transforms, frequency aggregation, date filters) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_series (metadata) or search_series (search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need data values for a series) but does not explicitly define when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'use get_series for metadata instead.' The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no further behavioral context except the example, and it does not contradict annotations. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, the first states the purpose directly and the second provides a concrete example. No filler or redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one required parameter and two optional realtime parameters that are not described. The output schema exists, but it does not help with parameter semantics. The description is adequate for a basic call but leaves the realtime parameters ambiguous, creating a clear gap for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only illustrates series_id in the example, providing no semantics for realtime_start and realtime_end parameters. These optional parameters remain undocumented, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the release that publishes a FRED series,' immediately clarifying the tool's function. The example with series_id='CPIAUCSL' reinforces the primary input. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_release, which fetches a release by ID, and list_releases, which lists all releases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the example but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_release or get_series_categories. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the context only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and world assumptions. The description adds an example call but no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, ordering defaults). With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the central action, and includes a helpful example. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter with an output schema provided, so return values are documented. However, optional parameters (order_by, sort_order, realtime dates) are not elaborated, which may confuse users unfamiliar with FRED API conventions. Overall adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for all five parameters. The description only demonstrates series_id in the example; order_by, sort_order, realtime_start, and realtime_end are left unexplained. This does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'tags assigned to a FRED series', clearly stating the tool's function. The example with series_id='CPIAUCSL' reinforces the expected input. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tags (all tags) and get_tags_series (series for a tag).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tags or get_tags_series. The usage context is implied by the phrase 'assigned to a FRED series', but exclusions or alternative scenarios are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not burdened with explaining safety. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the example, such as realtime parameter semantics or error behavior. It is adequate given the annotations but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes a concrete example. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple metadata lookup tool with an output schema and safe annotations. The description sufficiently covers the core use case, and the missing realtime parameter details are minor given that the output schema is present and the tool is low-complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare input schema. The description only provides an example for series_id and leaves realtime_start and realtime_end completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get metadata') and a clear resource ('FRED economic data series by series ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_series_observations. The example invocation reinforces the tool's exact purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need metadata rather than observations or other specific series details), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state any exclusions. The usage guidance is implied through the word 'metadata' rather than explicitly spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the meaning of vintage dates (when revisions/new values were released), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the safe read-only behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with an illustrative example. Every word earns its place, and the example adds practical guidance without bloating the text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core purpose is clear, the tool has six parameters and no parameter documentation in the schema. The realtime parameters are particularly non-obvious and could significantly affect results; the description does not compensate for this, making it incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions series_id in the example. Other parameters (limit, offset, sort_order, realtime_start, realtime_end) are not explained, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'vintage dates for a FRED series', and further clarifies what vintage dates mean (revision or new value release events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_series_observations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage with a concrete example (series_id='CPIAUCSL') but does not explicitly explain when to use this over other tools or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them. It adds the scoping detail 'across all releases' but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit, or return format. This is acceptable given annotations lighten the burden, but additional context could improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second gives a helpful example. No unnecessary words or repetition—every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 optional parameters and pagination-related fields, the tool is moderately complex, yet the description only mentions limit. It omits guidance on offset, ordering, realtime date parameters, and the include_no_data flag. The output schema exists but does not cover usage context for parameters, leaving the description incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only provides a limit example without explaining its semantics. The other six parameters (offset, order_by, sort_order, realtime_start, realtime_end, include_release_dates_with_no_data) remain unexplained in both description and schema, with only names and types available. This fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('release dates') and scope ('across all FRED releases'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_release_dates that target a single release. The example further reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'across all FRED releases' clearly indicates the tool is for obtaining release dates globally, implying it is not for a single release. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use get_release_dates instead), leaving the guidance slightly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'metadata' scope and an example, but does not elaborate on realtime parameter behavior or error handling. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, plus a concrete example. No wasted words; highly scannable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be detailed. However, the two optional realtime parameters are not described at all, which reduces completeness in the context of FRED's realtime data model. The core purpose is adequately covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains release_id via the example but provides no semantics for realtime_start and realtime_end, leaving two parameters completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get metadata'), the resource ('a FRED release'), and the identifier ('by release ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_release_dates or get_release_series. The concrete example reinforces the purpose and usage pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for when you need metadata for a specific release by ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is fairly clear given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read operation. The description adds the semantic context that sources 'publish' the release, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as handling of realtime parameters or possible empty results. Since the safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description is minimally adequate but does not go beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence followed by a useful example. Every word earns its place, and the example adds concrete operational guidance without bloat. This is a model of concise, structured description writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple retrieval operation with an output schema that presumably documents the return structure, so the description need not explain return values. However, the complete omission of realtime parameter semantics leaves a contextual gap, especially for an API with FRED-specific concepts. The description is enough for a basic understanding but not fully self-contained for an agent new to FRED.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only implicitly clarifies `release_id` through the example (`release_id=10`), but `realtime_start` and `realtime_end` are entirely unexplained. With no schema descriptions for these parameters, an agent unfamiliar with FRED's realtime conventions would be left guessing at their meaning and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get sources that publish a FRED release.' It includes a concrete example call (`get_release_sources(release_id=10)`) and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `get_source_releases` (which goes in the opposite direction) and `list_sources` (which lists all sources).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: you use this tool when you have a release ID and need to know which sources publish it. The example reinforces the expected input. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives, though the sibling tool list and the directional wording ('sources that publish a release') make the intended usage fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the safety profile is already established. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the sorting behavior and demonstrating filter usage. No contradictions with annotations detected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences total – a clear statement plus an example. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists and annotations cover read-only behavior, but the 7-parameter schema with no descriptions leaves gaps in understanding time filtering and pagination. The description gives a single example but doesn't explain parameter semantics or return format. Given the tool's complexity, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions filter_value in the example. Other parameters like start_time, end_time, realtime_start, realtime_end, limit, and offset are not explained at all. The example adds some meaning to filter_value but leaves the majority of parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'List FRED series sorted by when observations were last updated' – a clear verb+resource+sort criterion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_series or get_series by focusing on update recency. The example reinforces the intended use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need recently updated series) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The example adds practical usage context. Overall, it implies the use case without explicitly contrasting against siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: omitting category_id returns the root category, plus a concrete example. This goes beyond the structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded, with an example. No filler words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and the special root case. It lacks explicit alternative guidance but is otherwise sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining category_id as the category ID and describing the null/default behavior. The example further clarifies usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get a FRED category by ID' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_category_children by focusing on the category object itself, and adds the root-category nuance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for use: supply a specific ID, or omit for the root category. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use, but the tool name and sibling set make the primary use unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fred-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zachspar/fred-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zachspar/fred-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fred-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zachspar/fred-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zachspar/fred-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zachspar/fred-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server