[opensky · risk:low] List aircraft currently airborne within a latitude/longitude box, from OpenSky's live ADS-B feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lamax | Yes | North edge of the box — maximum latitude (e.g. 40.9 for NYC). | |
| lamin | Yes | South edge of the box — minimum latitude (e.g. 40.6 for NYC). | |
| lomax | Yes | East edge of the box — maximum longitude (e.g. -73.7 for NYC). | |
| lomin | Yes | West edge of the box — minimum longitude (e.g. -74.1 for NYC). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the source (OpenSky live ADS-B feed) without disclosing traits like rate limits, data freshness, or what happens when no aircraft are found.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and context.
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 tool without output schema, the description adequately states the input geometry but lacks details about the output format or edge cases, making it minimally complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reinforces that the bounding box is defined by latitude/longitude but does not elaborate on parameter values beyond the schema descriptions.
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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'aircraft currently airborne within a latitude/longitude box', distinguishing it from siblings such as flight search or status tools.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving implied usage for retrieving live aircraft data in a bounding box.
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.
