Get current weather for any city worldwide including temperature (F/C), conditions, and wind speed. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | City name (e.g. 'London', 'Tokyo', 'San Francisco') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description describes a read-only operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, creating a contradiction. The description does not clarify or correct this.
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 concise sentences: one for functionality, one for cost. No unnecessary words, well-structured.
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?
Lists expected output fields (temperature, conditions, wind speed), which is helpful given no output schema. Missing details on response format or errors, but adequate for a simple tool.
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% with description for 'location'. The tool description adds 'any city worldwide', providing useful scope beyond the schema's example list.
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 retrieves current weather for any city, listing specific outputs (temperature F/C, conditions, wind speed). No sibling tool offers weather data, so differentiation is inherent.
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 implies use for weather queries but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions for usage.
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 data operations (matching, standardization, enrichment) with clear descriptions. Minor overlaps exist, e.g., address_match_advanced vs global_address_match, but descriptions differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent 'interzoid_descriptive_function' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict purpose from the name.
58 tools is high for a single server, exceeding the typical 3-15 range. While each serves a specific data enrichment function, the quantity may overwhelm agents without clear categorization.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including address, company, person, and financial data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no reverse IP lookup, limited social media coverage), but core data needs are well-addressed.
