EIA MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what data is retrieved ('Get... data') without detailing behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. It lacks information on data freshness, source reliability, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it to highlight key aspects like data scope or usage context, but overall it is appropriately concise for its purpose.

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

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

Given the complexity of 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states what data is retrieved but fails to provide necessary context such as behavioral traits, usage scenarios, or what the output might look like. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering options, more guidance on how parameters interact and what to expect in return would enhance completeness, making it insufficient for full agent understanding.

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

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

The description does not add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'route' as 'Movement data route', 'frequency' with enum values). The description mentions 'cross-border flows and distribution infrastructure', which loosely relates to parameters like 'route' and 'area', but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so it meets the baseline of 3 given the high schema coverage.

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 imports, exports, and pipeline movement data including cross-border flows and distribution infrastructure.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('natural gas imports, exports, and pipeline movement data'), making it easy to understand what data is retrieved. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eia_natural_gas_consumption' or 'eia_natural_gas_storage', which might handle related but different data types.

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 does not mention any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools for comparison. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for historical data, real-time updates, or how it differs from other natural gas tools in the server, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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