Active and forecast extreme heat risk (NWS + model). Active NWS alerts filtered to extreme heat hazards for any US point, with model-based risk context. Same shape as /v1/alerts/severe with the hazard class fixed to extreme heat. [HTTP: GET /v1/alerts/heat · price $0.01 via x402 · docs https://x402-factory.com/docs/weather.alerts.heat]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | ||
| lon | No | ||
| state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: the hybrid NWS-alert plus model-risk composition, the fact that alerts are filtered to extreme-heat hazards only, and the payment/auth mechanism ($0.01 via x402, GET). It doesn't cover empty-result behavior, rate limits, or how lat/lon vs state interact, so not a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then shape reference, with endpoint/pricing/docs tucked into a bracketed trailing sentence. Dense but each sentence carries information; the bracket block is slightly separable but useful.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, and the description defers return shape to '/v1/alerts/severe', which the agent cannot resolve from context. Provenance, pricing, and endpoint are covered, but parameter usage and response shape remain under-specified for a 3-param lookup 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 0% and the description never mentions lat, lon, or state individually, nor that they are all optional or how a coordinate lookup differs from a state lookup. The phrase 'for any US point' hints at coordinates but leaves the required combination and state pattern entirely to the bare 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('active and forecast extreme heat risk'), names the data sources (NWS alerts + model), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling weather_alerts-severe by saying the hazard class is fixed to extreme heat. An agent can select it over flood/tornado/fire-weather siblings without opening schemas.
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?
Gives clear scope ('for any US point') and routes the agent via the reference to /v1/alerts/severe, implying that this endpoint is the heat-specialized variant. It does not spell out an explicit when-not or name a concrete alternative tool in the sibling list, so it stops short of a 5.
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.