Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

osm_building_footprint

OpenStreetMap building footprints via Overpass — give a coordinate (or bounding box) and get building geometry as GeoJSON, footprint area (m²), levels and height by coordinate. Worldwide coverage, OpenStreetMap data. Price: $0.01 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Building footprint and geometry by coordinate via OpenStreetMap/Overpass. Returns the building polygon as GeoJSON, server-computed footprint area (m²), levels/floors, height and name for buildings around a point or within a bounding box. Worldwide. For real-estate, insurance, solar, geospatial and urban-planning agents. Input: lat/lon (+radius) or bbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoLatitude of the point, e.g. 48.8584
lonNoLongitude of the point, e.g. 2.2945
bboxNoAlternative to lat/lon: 'south,west,north,east' (max ~2km span)
radiusNoSearch radius in metres [1-200], default 50

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses output format (GeoJSON, area, levels, height, name), pricing ($0.01 per call, USDC on Base), and global coverage. It lacks mention of potential rate limits or data completeness but is otherwise transparent.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. However, there is minor redundancy (two nearly identical phrases about building footprint via Overpass). Still clear and concise overall.

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?

For a tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output, pricing, and use cases. Missing details like coordinate system (WGS84) and potential data gaps, but still fairly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds context: lat/lon and bbox as alternatives, radius range (1-200m, default 50), and bbox max span (~2km). This goes beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves OpenStreetMap building footprints via Overpass, specifying the output as GeoJSON geometry, footprint area, levels, and height. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (crypto, legal, etc.) as the only geospatial building footprint tool.

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 mentions target use cases (real-estate, insurance, solar, geospatial, urban-planning agents) and input methods (lat/lon+radius or bbox). While it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the sibling tools are diverse enough that confusion is unlikely.

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