API Acre

data.us-address-geocode

Read-onlyIdempotent

Geocode one structural address in the United States, Puerto Rico, or U.S. Island Areas with normalized U.S. Census MAF/TIGER coordinates, optional bounded state/county/tract/block/congressional geography, exact source attribution, and explicit range-interpolation limits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	One-line structural address in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area. Include a building number and street name; city, state, and ZIP improve matching. The address is sent to the U.S. Census Geocoder for this lookup.
`include_geographies`	No	Include bounded state, county, tract, block, and current congressional-district fields from the Census geographic lookup.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Structured US address geocode result
`meta`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes	Unique request identifier

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds value by specifying the output coordinate system (Census MAF/TIGER), optional bounded geography fields, exact source attribution, and range-interpolation limits. This provides behavioral context beyond the safety profile set by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that delivers maximum signal in minimum space. It front-loads the core action and then lists all key features without any filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: scope, output type, optional geographies, source attribution, and interpolation limits. The only minor omission is the explicit data source (Census Geocoder API), but that is disclosed in the parameter description. Overall, the description is fully adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for both 'address' and 'include_geographies'. The main description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema. Per rules, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Geocode' paired with a precise resource (structural address in US, Puerto Rico, or US Island Areas), and enumerates distinct output features (Census MAF/TIGER coordinates, optional geographies, source attribution, interpolation limits). No sibling tool performs geocoding, so it is easily distinguished.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states the geographic scope and that it handles a single structural address, which tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though no sibling geocoding tool exists to cause confusion.

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

All API Acre tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (crypto, data, developer, document, research, web) and each tool name describes a specific function; however, a few umbrella tools like web.full-audit and data.contract overlap with their more targeted counterparts, creating minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix, a dot, and a hyphenated lowercase compound name (e.g., crypto.base-block-inspect, web.seo-audit). This makes naming predictable and easy to scan.

Tool Count1/5

At 63 tools, the surface area is very large and exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the tools are organized into six domains, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to select efficiently, and some tools are bundled combinations of others.

Completeness5/5

Each domain offers a thorough set of operations: crypto covers address, account, block, contract, events, gas, and transaction inspection; data covers cleaning, conversion, schema, and validation; developer covers code review, dependency/license audits, and test generation; research covers SEC, OFAC, GLEIF, and USAspending; web covers extraction, SEO, security, and performance. No obvious dead ends exist for the read-only/inspection purpose.

Resources

Need Help?