Reverse-geocode a lat/lon coordinate to the nearest address / place via OpenStreetMap Nominatim. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude (-90..90) | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude (-180..180) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is read-only and free (price 0.0), which is helpful for safety and cost considerations. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, response format, or what happens when the coordinate cannot be reverse-geocoded. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and every word adds value. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds important safety/cost context. There is no fluff or redundancy.
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 the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (two numeric inputs), the description provides adequate high-level context: what it does, what data source it uses, and its cost. However, it omits details about the returned data structure (e.g., address format, fields included) and error handling, which could hinder an agent without additional documentation.
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?
Both parameters (lat and lon) are documented in the input schema with descriptions (range constraints). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only provides context about the data source (Nominatim). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.
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 reverse-geocodes a lat/lon coordinate to the nearest address or place using OpenStreetMap Nominatim. The verb 'reverse-geocode' combined with the resource 'lat/lon coordinate' is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'geo_intel_geocode' (forward geocoding), so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where reverse geocoding is appropriate, nor does it contrast with the forward geocoding sibling 'geo_intel_geocode'. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.
The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.
For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.