Aeronaves transmitindo ADS-B agora num raio (em milhas náuticas) de um ponto, ordenadas da mais próxima pra mais distante. Retorna { total_in_radius, aircraft: [{ registration, callsign, type, lat, lon, alt_ft, gspeed_kt, track, distance_nm, bearing_deg }] }. Use com flightradar_airport pra converter um aeroporto em lat/lon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| radius_nm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, the description adds important behavioral detail: it returns live/current ADS-B aircraft, orders by proximity, and exposes the exact aircraft fields and units. This goes well beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main behavior, and includes the response format without filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description provides strong context: live aircraft, sorting, units, and the return shape, plus an integration hint. It falls slightly short on documenting the optional limit parameter and specific bounds/defaults, but overall is complete enough for effective 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?
The description clarifies that radius_nm is in nautical miles and that lat/lon define the point of reference. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain the limit parameter or any constraints/defaults on the coordinates, so the parameter semantics remain partially incomplete.
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 defines the tool as listing ADS-B-transmitting aircraft within a nautical-mile radius of a point, sorted from nearest to farthest. It also gives the full return payload structure, which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from related flightradar_* sibling tools.
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 explicitly suggests pairing with flightradar_airport to convert an airport into lat/lon, giving actionable usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over flightradar_closest or other nearby-aircraft siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.