layer_infoGet an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema by url: fields (name + type), geometry type, total record count, and capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feature/Map Service layer url, e.g. ".../FeatureServer/0". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare read-only/idempotent, so the description adds value by listing what is retrieved (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists specific output items. No wasted words, perfectly structured.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return components and input method. Minor gaps like potential URL validation or approximate record counts are not critical for an initial understanding.
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% with a clear parameter description including an example. The tool description only says 'by url', adding no extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool gets an ArcGIS layer's schema, specifying exact outputs (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). The verb 'Get' and resource are specific, and it's easily distinguishable from sibling tools like query_layer.
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 implies usage when you need schema/metadata for a layer, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like query_layer. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, relying on context.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, etc.). Descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools from different domains can cause an agent to select the wrong one for a given task.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others are nouns (layer_info, entity_profile), and some have prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no uniform pattern, making the set feel chaotic.
33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Arcgis Maricopa', which only has 3 GIS-specific tools. The remaining tools are from unrelated domains (polymarket betting, general Pipeworx queries, utilities), making the tool set bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.
For the ArcGIS domain, the set is minimal (only search, schema, and query) and lacks management or analysis tools. However, the broader toolset covers many data domains (finance, drugs, prediction markets), but with gaps like no update/delete operations for the GIS data. The overall coverage is mixed.