Compute the center point plus width/height (km) of a geographic bounding box. Pure math; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxLat | Yes | Bounding-box maximum latitude | |
| maxLon | Yes | Bounding-box maximum longitude | |
| minLat | Yes | Bounding-box minimum latitude | |
| minLon | Yes | Bounding-box minimum longitude |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it is pure math and free, but does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid bounding box) or precision details. Not contradictory, but incomplete.
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?
Description is one sentence, direct, and to the point. No extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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?
While the input schema is complete, the tool has no output schema and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., center lat/lon, width/height in km). Simplicity partially compensates, but missing output details reduce completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, placing it at baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states the tool computes the center point plus width/height of a geographic bounding box, using specific verbs and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like geo_intel_distance (distance between points) and geo_intel_geocode (address to coordinates).
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?
Implies usage through description ('Pure math; free') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like geo_intel_distance or geo_intel_geocode. Agent must infer from sibling tool names.
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 are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.