EIA MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data format (e.g., JSON, CSV). For a data retrieval tool with 8 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Get natural gas consumption...') and includes essential details ('end use data', 'demand patterns by sector'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., data format, error cases), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and output information. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'sector (residential, commercial, industrial, electric power)', which aligns with the 'sector' parameter's description. However, it doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get natural gas consumption and end use data including demand patterns by sector'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('natural gas consumption and end use data'), and scope ('by sector'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eia_natural_gas_summary' or 'eia_natural_gas_storage', which likely provide different types of natural gas data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, specify use cases (e.g., for sectoral analysis vs. summary statistics), or indicate prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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