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. It only states what data is retrieved without mentioning operational aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or use cases to enhance clarity.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, data structure, or how parameters interact (e.g., the relationship between 'route' and other fields). For a tool with rich parameter options and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'output metrics and production volumes,' which loosely relates to parameters like 'data_columns' but doesn't provide specific details. With high schema coverage, 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 production data including output metrics and production volumes.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'natural gas production data' with additional details about data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eia_natural_gas_consumption' or 'eia_natural_gas_summary,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 or contextual factors like data scope or use cases. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer from the tool name and parameters alone.

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