currentsFetch observed current speed and direction readings for a NOAA current station over a date range; optionally specify bin number for ADCP stations. Returns timestamped velocity data in english or metric units.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bin | No | ||
| units | No | ||
| station | Yes | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| time_zone | No | ||
| begin_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the data is observed, timestamped, and available in English or metric units, and explains the optional bin behavior for ADCP stations.
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, front-loaded with the main action, and includes necessary optional details without redundancy. Every clause 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 tool is moderately complex with six parameters, but an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the core functionality, optional bin, units, and data nature, but omits time_zone and potential limitations. Overall it is adequate for a read-only data fetch.
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 explicitly explains 'bin' and 'units', and implicitly conveys station and date range through the main clause. However, it does not mention 'time_zone', and date/station formats are left to the schema examples. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 fetches observed current speed and direction readings for a NOAA current station over a date range, with optional bin support for ADCP stations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like water_level and met_obs by specifying the resource and data type.
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 for when to use the tool: for current station data over a date range, with optional bin for ADCP. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to imply its niche among similar observation tools.
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.
The 7 NOAA-specific tools (stations, station_metadata, water_level, currents, met_obs, predictions, datums) are clearly distinct, but they are buried among ~31 Pipeworx platform tools with heavy internal overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route factual queries, while polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread all analyze prediction-market opportunities. An agent cannot easily tell whether the generic question-answering or prediction-market tools are the right choice without reading long descriptions.
Most tools use snake_case, but the naming conventions are inconsistent: some use descriptive nouns (stations, datums, predictions), some use noun_verb pairs (water_level, met_obs), and the Pipeworx batch mixes vendor-prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), and multi-word verbs (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence, ask_pipeworx_grounded). No predictable pattern unifies the set.
38 tools is far too many for a server named 'Noaa Tides' — only 7 tools relate to NOAA tide/current data, and the other 31 are an unrelated general-purpose data platform (SEC filings, prediction markets, npm packages, AI visibility scanning, memory storage). The overwhelming majority of the surface has nothing to do with the server's stated purpose, making the count and composition a severe mismatch.
For the nominal NOAA tides domain, the surface is reasonably complete: station listing, metadata, observed water levels, currents, meteorological observations, tide predictions, and datums cover the core workflows. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no harmonic constituents or extreme water-level statistics tool), but the essential operations are present. The unrelated tools do not fill gaps in the NOAA domain — they are clutter rather than coverage.