Active and forecast winter storm risk (NWS + model). Active NWS alerts filtered to winter storm hazards for any US point, with model-based risk context. Same shape as /v1/alerts/severe with the hazard class fixed to winter storm. [HTTP: GET /v1/alerts/winter · price $0.01 via x402 · docs https://x402-factory.com/docs/weather.alerts.winter]
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data sources (NWS + model), the underlying HTTP GET endpoint, and the x402 pricing ($0.01), but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return shape beyond 'same shape as /v1/alerts/severe'.
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-loads the core purpose, then adds the sibling-shape clarification and endpoint/pricing/docs metadata in a compact bracket. Every sentence is relevant, though the URL/pricing tail is somewhat tangential to selection.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does meaningful work on data sourcing and cost, but the 0% parameter coverage leaves the invocation contract underspecified for a three-parameter tool. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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 none of the three parameters (lat, lon, state) are documented. The description's 'for any US point' hints at lat/lon, but it never explains how lat/lon vs state interact, whether they are alternatives or combinable, or what defaults apply when all are optional.
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 resource and scope: active/forecast winter storm risk from NWS plus model, filtered to winter storm hazards for any US point. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling family by noting it is the same shape as /v1/alerts/severe with the hazard class fixed to winter storm, so an agent can pick it over weather_alerts_severe, weather_alerts_tornado, etc.
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 context ('for any US point', winter storm hazards) and names the related severe endpoint as the same shape, which implicitly routes selection. However, it never states explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites for preferring this over other hazard siblings.
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.