Standardizes addresses and resolves lat/lon coordinates ($0.001 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Raw address string query to standardize |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | Yes | Geocoding status | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude coordinate | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude coordinate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / address / descriptionAdded value: +"Raw address string query to standardize"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "latitude": {
+ "description": "Latitude coordinate",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "longitude": {
+ "description": "Longitude coordinate",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "Geocoding status",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "latitude",
+ "longitude"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that annotations do not: a per-call cost of $0.001 USDC. It does not otherwise describe resolution precision or failure behavior, so it is a modest addition over the structured fields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the cost appended. No filler, no restated name, nothing wasted.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is missing structurally: the cost. Return values are handled by the output schema. Only a brief note on input format or failure modes would make it complete.
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?
A single parameter with 100% schema description coverage means the schema already fully documents 'address'. The description's phrase 'standardizes addresses' loosely confirms the input is a raw address string but adds no format, example, or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: standardizing addresses and resolving lat/lon coordinates. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from all siblings, none of which touch address normalization. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't scope what kinds of addresses or what 'standardize' means in output terms.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name and description that this is the tool for turning a raw address into a canonical form, but nothing states that explicitly or warns about when it is the wrong choice.
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.