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 already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying exactly what information the tool returns (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities), which is not stated in the annotations. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.
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, tightly-packaged sentence that fronts the action and delivers all essential information. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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 read tool with strong annotations and a self-contained description, this is fully sufficient. The description specifies the input (URL), the output components, and the nature of the operation. No output schema is needed because the description enumerates the return contents.
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 the url parameter is already well-described in the input schema. The description only adds 'by url' and sample output components, but doesn't contribute additional parameter-level meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer's schema. It enumerates the exact contents (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_layer which likely fetch data.
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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need schema/metadata for a specific ArcGIS layer by URL. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it's appropriate. Sibling tools like query_layer and search_within serve different functions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to use each. Even overlapping functions like ask_pipeworx varieties are well-differentiated by mode (casual vs grounded vs multi-source).
Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., query_layer, resolve_entity), but a few deviate with single-word verbs (forget, remember, recall) or noun_noun (layer_info). The pattern is mostly consistent with minor exceptions.
With 33 tools, the count is high and borders on heavy. However, the tools span multiple domains (GIS, financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), and each serves a unique role, so the count is justifiable but could be streamlined.
The tool set covers a broad range of data access and analysis tasks relevant to the inferred domain of a multi-purpose assistant. While the ArcGIS portion is limited, the overall surface is well-populated with few obvious gaps.