Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Lilambd Data for Agents

by io.github.Veniwol-Li-Lambd
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

place-brief

What natural hazards and infrastructure surround this latitude/longitude?. One finished place brief for any point on Earth: historical significant earthquakes, tsunami sources and volcanic eruptions near the point (NOAA NCEI), the admin1 region's USGS M6+ rate since 1900 and its rank, nearby GHCN station warming (1991-2020 vs 1961-1990), country hazard totals, nearest cities, scheduled airports, power plants (capacity by fuel), market places and ports, each with great-circle distance in km. Every block names its source and data date; computed fields are marked as computed by Lilambd. Historical record only, not a hazard model, engineering or legal advice. Routes: /answer (lat*, lon*, radius_km); /nearest (lat*, lon*, kind*, radius_km, scheduled, include_heliports, limit, offset); /coverage. Paid $0.5 USDC per call via x402 (_meta["x402/payment"]); set sample=true for a free 3-row preview.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "route": "<route>"
    },
    "name": "place-brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
routeYesOne of: /answer, /nearest, /coverage. Replace {placeholders} with a value, e.g. /search or /HND.
paramsNoQuery parameters, e.g. {"q":"tokyo","limit":"50"}
sampleNoFree preview, max 3 rows

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.5 USDC charge via x402, the free 3-row preview with sample=true, that the data is historical only (not a hazard model or legal advice), and that every block names its source and data date. It stops short of covering rate limits, error responses, or response format details.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but front-loaded, starting with the core question and data list, then caveats, routes, and pricing. It avoids filler, though the single-paragraph format makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted list would.

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's complexity (three routes, nested params, paid calls, no output schema), the description covers what data is returned, the payment model, a free preview option, and important limitations. It could go further by describing the response structure or output format, but it is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema itself only vaguely says route is one of three values and params is a generic object. The description adds substantial meaning by enumerating route-specific parameters with required indicators (e.g., /answer requires lat, lon, radius_km; /nearest requires lat, lon, kind and lists optional flags), which directly compensates for the schema's generic route description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it produces a 'place brief for any point on Earth' and enumerates the data blocks included. It distinguishes itself implicitly by aggregating hazards, infrastructure, and demographics, but it never explicitly contrasts with single-domain siblings like 'hazard' or 'exposure'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: use when you need a combined brief for a latitude/longitude. The three routes (/answer, /nearest, /coverage) are listed with their parameters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose place-brief over sibling tools such as 'hazard' or 'disaster-exposure', nor are exclusions stated.

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

All Lilambd Data for Agents toolsInspect
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.

Resources