tripSolve a TSP-like trip between multiple waypoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | first | any (default any) | |
| profile | No | ||
| roundtrip | No | Return to start (default true) | |
| coordinates | Yes | ||
| destination | No | last | any |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Status code (Ok or error) | |
| trips | No | Array of optimized trip routes | |
| waypoints | No | Reordered waypoints array |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'solve', which aligns with the annotations. It does not disclose constraints like optimization strategy, result format, or input limitations.
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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It avoids fluff, but the use of 'TSP-like' might require prior knowledge. Overall, it is well-structured for a simple tool.
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 presence of an output schema and informative annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate context. It lacks details on typical use cases, coordinate format (though examples exist), and how 'TSP-like' differs from exact TSP. For a tool with five parameters, it is somewhat underdescribed.
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 60%, covering source, roundtrip, and destination with basic descriptions. However, the required 'coordinates' parameter and 'profile' lack descriptions. The tool description does not add clarity for these parameters, missing an opportunity to explain format or acceptable values.
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 'solves a TSP-like trip between multiple waypoints', using a specific verb and resource. It implies optimization for multiple waypoints, distinguishing it from a simple routing tool like 'route'. However, it could be more explicit about the difference.
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 like 'route' or other siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and brief purpose alone.
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.