predictionsTide predictions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datum | No | MLLW (default), MSL, MHW, NAVD, … | |
| units | No | english (default) | metric | |
| station | Yes | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| interval | No | hilo (default) | h (hourly) | 6 | 30 (minutes) | |
| time_zone | No | gmt (default) | lst | lst_ldt | |
| begin_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as requiring a date range, time zone handling, or output structure. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds meaningful transparency.
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 under-specified—two words cannot convey enough information. It is concise but at the expense of clarity, resembling a title rather than a tool description.
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?
Given 7 parameters and an output schema, this minimal description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's core function, usage context, or any operational nuances, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 offers no parameter information. With 57% schema coverage, the undocumented parameters (station, begin_date, end_date) are not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the moderate schema coverage, so an agent gets no extra meaning.
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 'Tide predictions' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name with a domain qualifier. It lacks a verb or action, so it doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Get tide predictions for a station and date range'). It provides only vague differentiation from siblings like water_level or currents.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to select this tool from the large sibling 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.
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.