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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with every word contributing to understanding what data is retrieved. There's no redundancy or wasted phrasing.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are crucial for effective tool invocation. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more by explaining return values or constraints, but it doesn't.

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 'inventory levels, injections, and withdrawals', which loosely relates to 'data_columns' but doesn't provide specific semantics or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 storage data including inventory levels, injections, and withdrawals from storage facilities.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('natural gas storage data') with concrete examples of what data is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eia_natural_gas_summary' or 'eia_natural_gas_consumption', which might also involve storage-related 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 or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as using 'eia_natural_gas_summary' for aggregated data or 'eia_natural_gas_consumption' for usage metrics. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage information.

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