Today's official water-level readings (cm) at the cruise-critical gauges on the Rhine, Danube, Elbe and Seine, with each station's state and its percentile against thirty years.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about data being 'official', 'cruise-critical', and including a 30-year percentile, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe any potential side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, scope, units, and output details without redundancy. Every phrase adds value.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: readings in cm, station state, and 30-year percentile, across four rivers. It lacks explicit definitions of 'state' but is complete for a simple read-only gauge tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain them. The schema is trivially covered, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 returns today's official water-level readings (cm) for specific rivers (Rhine, Danube, Elbe, Seine), including station state and percentile. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like get_monthly_odds and score_sailing.
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 phrase 'Today's' implies usage for current-day readings, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_monthly_odds or get_month_detail. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
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 targets a distinct need: live readings, month explanations, 12-month odds, and specific cruise scoring. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Three tools follow get_ convention, but score_sailing uses a different verb. Minor deviation does not affect clarity.
Four tools cover the domain without redundancy or bloat. Each serves a clear role in assessing river cruise risk.
The set covers current conditions, month-level explanation, forward-looking odds, and cruise-specific scoring. Minor gaps like historical raw data or river metadata exist but don't undermine core workflows.
