Forward-geocode a place / address query to coordinates via the free OpenStreetMap Nominatim API. Returns ranked results with lat/lon and display name. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| query | Yes | Place name or address to geocode |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Notes it is read-only and free, and describes output as ranked results with lat/lon and display name. But does not disclose rate limits, accuracy, or other potential behavioral traits of the external API.
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, no fluff. First sentence states action, second describes output and key traits (read-only, free). Every word adds value; front-loaded with the main purpose.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (ranked results, lat/lon, display name). Mentions free read-only nature and API source. Could mention error handling or usage limits, but overall complete for a geocoding 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by specifying that results are 'ranked' and include 'display name', supplementing the schema's minimal descriptions. This helps the agent understand output beyond static schema.
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 it forward-geocodes a place/address query to coordinates, distinguishing from reverse geocoding (geo_intel_reverse_geocode) and other geo tools. Specific verb 'Forward-geocode' and resource 'coordinates' are clear.
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?
Mentions it uses the free OpenStreetMap Nominatim API and is read-only, providing context. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like geo_intel_reverse_geocode or geo_intel_distance. Still, the context is helpful.
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.