Resolve a place name to coordinates, country, admin region, timezone, elevation and population. (Free. This server also sells a paid API — call paid_catalogue for the routes and prices; x402 over USDC on Base, no signup.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Place name to resolve | |
| count | No | 1-20 candidates (default 5) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool is free and that a paid API exists, and lists the output fields, but it does not disclose rate limits, response format (beyond the fields), or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and a concise parenthetical about pricing. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple geocoding tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input, output fields, and the free/paid distinction. It could add error handling or return structure, but the listed fields serve as a sufficient return description, making it complete enough for practical use.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds context by listing the geographic attributes returned, which clarifies the meaning of the `name` parameter, but adds no new syntax or format details for `count`. It meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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 uses the specific verb 'resolve' and names the resource (place name) along with a detailed list of output fields (coordinates, country, admin region, timezone, elevation, population). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like elevation or country_indicator, which serve different purposes.
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?
It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the output scope makes its role clear. The mention of `paid_catalogue` provides guidance on when to escalate to a paid API, which is a form of alternative guidance.
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.
Most tools serve clearly distinct purposes: air quality, skill audit, country data, earthquakes, elevation, geocoding, holidays, URL reading, and web search. However, `audit_skill_text` and `audit_skill_url` both audit for malicious behavior, differing only in input type, which could cause slight confusion.
Tool names use a mix of snake_case and descriptive phrases without a strict verb_noun pattern. Some names are verbs (e.g., `geocode`, `audit_skill_text`, `read_url`), while others are nouns (e.g., `air_quality`, `earthquakes`). The naming is readable but inconsistent in style.
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a server that aggregates diverse free data and security services. Each tool serves a distinct and useful function, and the `paid_catalogue` tool properly manages the paid extension without bloating the main set.
The tool set covers a broad range of data types (environment, economic, geographic, security), but for each individual domain, coverage is shallow. For example, only current air quality is provided (no historical data), and skill auditing only returns a scan result (no detailed remediation). The set lacks update, delete, or drill-down operations per domain.