demDEM raster for a bounding box (returns URL to GeoTIFF).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| east | Yes | ||
| west | Yes | ||
| north | Yes | ||
| south | Yes | ||
| format | No | GTiff (default) | AAIGrid | HFA | |
| dataset | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size_bytes | Yes | Size of the raster file in bytes | |
| request_url | Yes | URL to fetch the DEM raster GeoTIFF | |
| content_type | Yes | MIME type of the raster response |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds that it returns a URL to GeoTIFF, but does not detail scaling, limits, or performance. With annotations covering safety, the description provides marginal additional behavioral context.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it omits important details about parameters and usage. It is appropriately front-loaded but could be expanded without becoming verbose.
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 the low schema coverage and 6 parameters (5 required), the description is too minimal. It does not explain dataset options, coordinate order, units, or response structure beyond 'URL to GeoTIFF'. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it.
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 description coverage is only 17%, with only the 'format' parameter described. The description does not explain the bounding box parameters (east, west, north, south) or the required 'dataset' parameter, leaving most parameters opaque.
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 returns a DEM raster for a bounding box as a URL to GeoTIFF. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like point_elevation which queries single points.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as point_elevation for single points or other raster tools. No context on prerequisites or when not to use.
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 tool set has several near-duplicate entries (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; five polymarket_* tools), and the server name implies topography while most tools serve unrelated data lookups, making it hard to select the right tool for a task.
Most tool names use snake_case and a verb-first style, but there are notable exceptions like 'datasets', 'dem', and 'forget', and the 'pipeworx' prefix is applied inconsistently (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending vs. ask_pipeworx). The pattern is readable but not fully uniform.
With 34 tools, the count is excessive for a server named Opentopography, especially since only 3 tools (datasets, dem, point_elevation) relate to the implied domain. The bulk of tools belong to a general-purpose data and prediction-market service, creating a severe scope mismatch.
For the implied topography domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only dataset listing, a raster fetch, and a point elevation lookup are present, missing expected operations like elevation profiles, point cloud access, or data processing. For the broader Pipeworx domain, coverage is broad but this does not match the server's stated focus.