Fed Speech MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that speeches are sorted by publication date (most recent first), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds key behavioral detail (sorting). It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

For a read-only tool with no annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and sorting behavior but lacks details on return format (e.g., fields in speeches), error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and since_date). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'latest' interacts with since_date. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the latest Federal Reserve speeches' specifies the verb (get) and resource (speeches). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'latest' (most recent) rather than filtering by speaker, type, or search terms, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage context through 'latest' and sorting by publication date, suggesting this tool is for retrieving recent speeches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like get_speeches_by_speaker or search_speeches, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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