reverseReverse geocode — coordinates → nearest place name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| lang | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| radius | No | Search radius in km (default 1) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| features | No | Array of reverse geocoding results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns the 'nearest place name', but does not elaborate on other behaviors like support for multiple results (via limit parameter) or any constraints. Consistent with 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?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is good. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing details that could be helpful.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal. With 6 parameters and low schema coverage, it should provide more context about optional parameters and the exact nature of the output (e.g., what 'nearest place name' entails).
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% (only radius has description). The description does not provide any additional meaning for parameters like lat, lon, lang, layer, or limit. It fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage.
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 it performs reverse geocoding, converting coordinates to a nearest place name. While it is specific and use case is clear, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search' which might do forward geocoding.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate or when not to use it, nor any reference to sibling 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even within clusters like Pipeworx queries (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.). Overlap is minimal and explicitly addressed in descriptions.
All tool names use snake_case, and most follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). Exceptions like remember, reverse are still single words in the same style.
32 tools is on the high side but justified by the wide scope: data querying, betting, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool earns its place, and the count is not excessive given the breadth.
The tool set covers the core workflows of querying structured data, comparing entities, validating claims, scanning dependencies, and monitoring, with few gaps (e.g., no direct data visualization). Minor gaps exist but are manageable.