nearestSnap a single point to the nearest road segment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | No | How many alternatives to return (default 1) | |
| profile | No | ||
| latitude | Yes | ||
| longitude | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Status code (Ok or error) | |
| waypoints | No | Array of nearest waypoint candidates |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. Description adds the specific snapping behavior, which is consistent and provides context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, directly conveys the core function. No waste.
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?
Adequate for a simple snapping operation. Does not explain return behavior, but output schema may cover that. Parameter semantics are missing, but overall acceptable for a low-complexity 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?
Schema description coverage is low (25%), yet the description does not elaborate on any parameters (e.g., 'number' for alternatives, 'profile' for mode). It adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action ('snap'), the resource ('a single point'), and the target ('nearest road segment'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'route' or 'trip'.
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 (e.g., 'route', 'match'). The description does not mention use cases or exclusions.
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 notable overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all serving data retrieval. Similarly, the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) share a domain, causing potential confusion for an agent.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), camelCase-like (bet_research, compare_entities), and noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes) are mixed. The lack of a uniform verb_noun or other convention makes it harder to predict tool names.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Osrm,' which suggests a focused routing engine. The actual tool set spans routing, data query, betting, entity resolution, and memory, indicating an overbroad scope that dilutes coherence.
The data query and betting tools are relatively comprehensive, but the routing side is minimal (missing isochrones, alternative routes). Gaps exist in general web search and coverage of other prediction markets. The server doesn't fully cover either the implied routing domain or the broader data/betting domain.