Coordinates → nearest address(es). Returns the closest reference addresses to (lat, lng), nearest first, with distances.
Optional: `country` (ISO-3) to constrain the search, `radius_m`, `limit`.
Cost: 1 credit per successful lookup; an empty radius (no addresses found)
is refunded.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lng | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| radius_m | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns nearest addresses with distances and reveals cost behavior ('1 credit per successful lookup; an empty radius is refunded'). However, it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.
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 (3 sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose first, then lists optional parameters, and ends with cost details. Every sentence is necessary and informative.
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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and cost. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., address format, fields) or error cases, leaving a gap for a fully complete context.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning for all 5 parameters: it explains the purpose of lat/lng (input coordinates), and clarifies that country is ISO-3, radius_m is in meters, limit controls count. It also provides cost information not in schema.
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 converts coordinates to nearest addresses, with distances, distinguishing it from sibling tools like geocode_address (forward geocoding) and validate_address (validation). It uses a specific verb and resource ('Coordinates → nearest address(es)').
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 for use by explaining optional parameters (country, radius_m, limit) that constrain the search, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like geocode_address or validate_address. The sibling names imply different use cases, but no direct guidance is given.
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.
Most tools target distinct operations: validation (single/batch), geocoding, reverse geocoding, enrichment, UK postcode expansion, and account management. The main overlap is between enrich_us_ca_address and validate_address, which also includes an enrichment block for US/CA matches, potentially causing confusion about which to use.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_balance, expand_uk_postcode, validate_addresses_batch). The naming is uniform and predictable across the set.
8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriately scoped for a geocoding/validation API. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary bloat, and the count reflects the complexity of the domain.
The core workflows—single and batch validation, forward and reverse geocoding, enrichment, and UK postcode expansion—are covered. Minor gaps include the lack of a batch geocoding tool and the redundant enrichment functionality already present in validate_address, but these do not create dead ends.