NOAA NCEI monthly average temperature (GSOM) for one weather station, with station metadata and observation date. $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it meaningfully discloses cost, payment rail (x402/USDC on Base), and response characteristics (provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation). It does not cover errors or edge cases, but the main behavioral traits are surfaced.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then adds payment and response details without filler. It is efficient and informative, though the semicolon-packed structure could be more scannable in a list of tool options.
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 paid tool with no output schema, no annotations, and four mostly undocumented parameters, the description omits how entity/start/end should be represented, what units are returned, and how to obtain the payment quote. It gives a high-level sense of the response but not enough to confidently construct the first correct call.
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?
Only payment has a schema description; entity, start, and end are undocumented. The tool description only vaguely suggests that start/end relate to observation dates and that entity identifies a station, without specifying formats or allowed values, so it fails to compensate for the 25% schema coverage.
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 names a precise resource—NOAA NCEI monthly average temperature (GSOM) for a single weather station—and specifies included metadata and observation date. It lacks an explicit verb but is specific and distinct enough to differentiate it from all sibling 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?
No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives or how to structure a valid request. The only usage-related detail is the $0.005/call x402 payment condition, which is a requirement rather than a selection guideline.
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.