Active and forecast tornado risk (NWS + model). Active NWS alerts filtered to tornado hazards for any US point, with model-based risk context. Same shape as /v1/alerts/severe with the hazard class fixed to tornado. [HTTP: GET /v1/alerts/tornado · price $0.01 via x402 · docs https://x402-factory.com/docs/weather.alerts.tornado]
| 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 full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data sources (NWS alerts + model context), a cost ($0.01 via x402), the HTTP verb/endpoint, and a docs link, but says nothing about response shape, empty-result behavior, or rate limits beyond the price.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the bracketed HTTP/pricing/docs footer is compact. Slightly boilerplate but nothing is wasteful.
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, so the description must do more. It helps by cross-referencing the /v1/alerts/severe response shape, but leaves the three parameters' interaction and optionality unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a multi-filter read 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% across three parameters. The phrase 'for any US point' loosely implies lat/lon, but the description never addresses the 'state' parameter, whether the coordinates are optional, or how the three filters combine. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource (active/forecast tornado risk from NWS plus model) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the same shape as /v1/alerts/severe with the hazard class fixed to tornado.' An agent can tell it apart from weather_alerts_hurricane, weather_alerts_flood, and weather_alerts-severe without opening a schema.
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 geographic scope ('for any US point') which implies usage, but never states when to choose this over the other hazard-class alert tools, nor any exclusions. Routing is left to inference from the name and hazard class.
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.