Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

climate_risk_score

Derived climate risk score from Open-Meteo CMIP6 projections — a composite heat/drought/extreme-rain risk score (0-100) by coordinate and scenario, comparing a baseline to a future horizon. Worldwide. Derived/heuristic, not an official rating; the underlying CMIP6 HighResMIP dataset is a single high-emissions pathway and does not differentiate SSP scenarios. Price: $0.05 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Derived climate risk score by coordinate from Open-Meteo CMIP6 (HighResMIP) projections. Returns a composite 0-100 heat/drought/extreme-rain risk score and rating, per-hazard subscores and indicators, baseline-vs-future comparison and an explicit methodology. Deterministic. Derived/heuristic, NOT an official or regulatory rating; the underlying dataset is a single high-emissions pathway and does not differentiate SSP scenarios. For property due-diligence, ESG, parametric-insurance and siting agents. Input: lat/lon (+scenario, horizon).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYesLatitude, e.g. 48.85
lonYesLongitude, e.g. 2.35
horizonNoFuture target year [2030-2050], e.g. 2050
scenarioNoEmission scenario label: ssp245 | ssp585 (informational, see methodology)

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses derivation type (heuristic), non-official rating, deterministic behavior, pricing ($0.05 per call via x402), and dataset limitations. Lacks details on error handling or caching but covers key behavioral aspects beyond basic read/write.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description is repetitive, stating 'Derived/heuristic, not an official rating' and 'single high-emissions pathway' twice. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (composite score, per-hazard subscores, baseline comparison, methodology) and includes pricing and deterministic nature. Lacks explicit output field names but covers high-level completeness for a derived score tool.

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?

All 4 parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context: horizon range (2030-2050), example values for lat/lon, and scenario options as 'informational'. This is marginal additional value beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it derives a composite climate risk score from Open-Meteo CMIP6 projections, specifying hazards (heat/drought/extreme-rain), range (0-100), inputs (coordinate, scenario), and comparison type (baseline vs future). Distinguishes from siblings by describing its unique purpose and application domains.

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?

Explicitly lists intended use cases (property due-diligence, ESG, parametric-insurance, siting) and notes limitations (single high-emissions pathway, heuristic nature, scenario informational). Provides scenario options and horizon range. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but limitations imply appropriate use cases.

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

All x402-endpoints toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources