[duvera · risk:low] Search for restaurants and food places by name or location using OpenStreetMap. Read-only, no account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query, e.g. "pizza in San Francisco" or "sushi near me". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool is read-only and requires no account, which are key traits. However, it omits details such as rate limits, result formatting, pagination, or potential limitations of OpenStreetMap data.
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 extremely concise: two sentences containing all essential information. The prefix '[duvera · risk:low]' adds context without being redundant. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.
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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's function, data source, and safety. It could be improved by briefly mentioning the typical output (e.g., list of restaurants with details).
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 single parameter 'query' has a schema description listing examples like 'pizza in San Francisco'. The description reinforces this with similar examples, adding practical meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description still adds value.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: searching for restaurants and food places by name or location using OpenStreetMap. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like duvera__food_recipe_search by specifying 'restaurants and food places' rather than recipes.
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 context ('Read-only, no account required') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like geo_geocode or recipe_search. No exclusions or comparisons are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
