Paid $0.01 USDC exact on Base: forward geocode with q= or reverse with lat=&lon= via public Nominatim (OpenStreetMap). Attribution required. payTo 0x3903F05a17676566958B0a3E0c21E0bd49B66ea0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Place name for forward geocode (e.g. Denver, CO). | |
| lat | No | Latitude -90..90 for reverse geocode. | |
| lon | No | Longitude -180..180 for reverse geocode. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses essential behavioral traits: the tool is paid ($0.01 USDC exact on Base), requires attribution, uses public Nominatim, and specifies the payTo address. Nothing in the description contradicts 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?
The description is a single dense sentence that packs operation modes, service, payment, attribution, and payment destination without wasted words. Critical information is front-loaded.
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 covers the essential operational details: how to invoke each mode, the fee, the payment address, the network, and attribution. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not describe the output shape or behavior when both q and lat/lon are provided or when none are provided, but geocoding semantics are largely implicit.
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 schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful mapping between parameter groups and operation modes: `q` for forward, `lat=`/`lon=` together for reverse, and implies that lat/lon must be used as a pair.
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 states a specific verb and resource: forward geocoding via `q=` and reverse geocoding via `lat=`/`lon=`, using public Nominatim/OpenStreetMap. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the broader sibling list.
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 description gives explicit usage context: use `q` for forward geocoding and `lat`/`lon` for reverse geocoding. It also warns that attribution is required. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative geocoding tools, but no close sibling exists in the provided list.
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.