Active US National Weather Service alerts for one state, aggregated by severity, urgency and event type. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the $0.01 cost, the x402 mechanism, and that the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not clarify whether the state selection is somehow embedded elsewhere, and it omits any mention of rate limits or what happens when no alerts exist.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then tight supplemental details about cost and response contents. No filler or redundant restating of schema fields.
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?
The tool is simple on the surface, but the unexplained state selection is a critical gap. The description mentions response attestation and aggregation dimensions, but without a state parameter or an explanation of how the state is determined, an agent cannot confidently call the tool for a specific state.
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 schema's only parameter, payment, is 100% described, so the baseline is 3. But the description says 'for one state' without any schema field to specify it, creating a fundamental mismatch that prevents an agent from knowing how to perform the stated task. The description adds cost context but not the essential link to the missing state parameter.
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 aggregates active US NWS alerts by severity, urgency, and event type, which distinguishes it from the other lookup and summary tools. However, 'for one state' is ambiguous because the input schema offers no state parameter, slightly clouding what the tool actually targets.
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?
It explicitly explains the payment flow: include the x402 payment header or omit it to receive a free quote. It does not mention when an agent should prefer this over sibling tools, but the context of NWS alerts and payment is clear enough for basic invocation.
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 targets a unique dataset and operation: lookups by ID, summary aggregations, time series, or search. Even tools with similar descriptors (e.g., FMRArea lookup vs. search, FDA vs. CPSC recalls) are clearly separated by resource and output type.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a `domain_resource_kind` pattern such as `fda_recall_lookup` and `cpsc_recall_monthly_summary`. A few outliers like `bank_profile_lite`, `cpi_us_monthly`, and `us_debt_to_penny` break the dominant suffix convention but remain readable.
24 tools is on the high side for a single server, but this appears to be an aggregator of many independent public datasets, so each tool represents a distinct data source and has a purpose. It is slightly above the ideal ergonomic range but not bloated or redundant.
As a read-only attested-data lookup service, the set provides good coverage with both point lookups and aggregate summaries across many domains. The main gaps are the lack of a catalog/discovery endpoint and search support for most identifier-based lookups, but agents can work around those with known identifiers.