top_castlesThe most famous landmarks worldwide or in one country, ordered by Castlemap fame rank — a blend of Wikipedia coverage and readership; rank 1 is the most famous (Great Wall of China). The direct answer to "most famous castles in "; filter by country and/or category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many (default 10) | |
| country | No | Country name or ISO code (optional — omit for worldwide) | |
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by explaining the fame-rank ordering, the blending of Wikipedia coverage and readership, the anchor at rank 1, and the country/category scoping. It does not describe output fields or edge cases, but the essential behavior is transparent.
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 two sentences with no filler: it defines the ranking basis, gives an anchor example, and states the main usage. The key information is front-loaded.
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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how it is ordered, and how to scope by country or category. Return-field details are omitted, but the input schema plus this description are sufficient for correct invocation.
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 67%, with limit and country documented. The description adds value by clarifying that country and category can be combined as filters, but limit behavior is left to the schema and category options come only from the enum. This meets the baseline without going beyond it.
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 resource and behavior: a ranked list of the most famous castle landmarks worldwide or by country. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_castles and random_castle by presenting itself as 'the direct answer to most famous castles in <country>'.
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?
It gives concrete usage context: use for worldwide or country-scoped fame rankings, and filter by country and/or category. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the 'direct answer' phrasing provides enough guidance to select this tool over its siblings.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: geospatial search (castles_near), single-record retrieval (get_castle), aggregate statistics (get_statistics), country overviews (list_countries), random discovery (random_castle), name-based search (search_castles), and fame-based rankings (top_castles). The only slight overlap between list_countries and get_statistics is minimal and both descriptions clearly separate them.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are self-explanatory, but they mix verb-first patterns (get_, list_, search_) with adjective or noun-first patterns (random_castle, top_castles, castles_near). This is a minor deviation from a fully consistent verb_noun convention, though the inconsistency does not hinder readability.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a castle atlas. Each tool covers a distinct need—search, get, near, top, random, stats, countries—without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset covers most read-oriented workflows: finding, retrieving, ranking, and statistics. A notable gap is the lack of a way to list all castles in a country or category without a name search term; search_castles requires a name substring and top_castles returns only the most famous. This is a workaround by using search with a broad term, but it's not a first-class operation.