Agent Margin Router

Geocode

geocode

Read-only

Turn a place name or address into coordinates, bounding box, address parts and OSM type using OpenStreetMap Nominatim (ODbL); cached 24h. Pay per call with USDC or USDT on Base via x402. 3 free calls per wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Place name or address.
`wallet`	No	Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 free calls per wallet).
`api_key`	No	Optional AMR enterprise API key.
`language`	No	Result language (default en).	en
`x_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 payment payload (base64 JSON) for USDC/USDT on Base.
`max_results`	No	1-10 (default 5).
`country_codes`	No	Comma-separated ISO codes, e.g. de,at.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`token`	No	Token actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).	USDC
`domain`	No
`source`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`routing`	Yes	How the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).
`cost_usdc`	Yes	Price charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.
`fetched_at`	No	UTC timestamp when the data was fetched.
`attribution`	No
`result_count`	Yes
`freshness_seconds`	Yes	Age of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).
`x_payment_response`	No	Base64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Response for ``POST /geocode``.",
+  "properties": {
+    "attribution": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Attribution"
+    },
+    "cost_usdc": {
+      "description": "Price charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.",
+      "title": "Cost Usdc",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Domain"
+    },
+    "fetched_at": {
+      "description": "UTC timestamp when the data was fetched.",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "title": "Fetched At",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "freshness_seconds": {
+      "description": "Age of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).",
+      "title": "Freshness Seconds",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "title": "Query",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result_count": {
+      "title": "Result Count",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "title": "Results",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "routing": {
+      "description": "How the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).",
+      "properties": {
+        "cache_hit": {
+          "default": false,
+          "description": "True if the result was served from cache.",
+          "title": "Cache Hit",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "fallback_used": {
+          "default": false,
+          "description": "True if the primary provider failed and a fallback served the result.",
+          "title": "Fallback Used",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "latency_ms": {
+          "default": 0,
+          "description": "End-to-end routing latency in milliseconds.",
+          "title": "Latency Ms",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "provider": {
+          "description": "Name of the upstream provider that served the result.",
+          "title": "Provider",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "providers_tried": {
+          "description": "Providers attempted, in order.",
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": "Providers Tried",
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "provider"
+      ],
+      "title": "RoutingMeta",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "title": "Source",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "default": "USDC",
+      "description": "Token actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).",
+      "title": "Token",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "x_payment_response": {
+      "description": "Base64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "freshness_seconds",
+    "cost_usdc",
+    "routing",
+    "query",
+    "results",
+    "result_count",
+    "source"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: results are cached for 24 hours, the service is paid via USDC/USDT on Base through x402 with a free tier of 3 calls per wallet, and data comes from OpenStreetMap Nominatim under ODbL. These add significant context about cost, reliability, and licensing, which the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) do not cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, with the core function front-loaded in the first sentence and additional operational details (caching, payment) in the second. Every phrase carries meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has seven parameters, an output schema, and annotations for read-only/open-world behavior, the description covers the essential operational context: the core transformation, data source, caching, and payment model. It does not describe error handling or output structure, but the output schema addresses that. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema documents all seven parameters with descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not elaborate on any parameter specifics, and the operational details it mentions (caching, payment) are not parameter-related. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Turn') and a clear resource ('a place name or address into coordinates, bounding box, address parts and OSM type') using OpenStreetMap Nominatim. It also names the data license (ODbL) and caching, making the function unambiguous. No sibling tool appears to offer geocoding, so it is clearly differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (when you need to convert a place name or address to coordinates) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. Since there are no competing geocoding tools among the siblings, the lack of explicit exclusion is acceptable, but it could be more explicit about the use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent Margin Router tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.