Locate restaurants, shops, and landmarks by coordinates. Provide query, latitude, longitude, and limit to get results for $0.01 USDC per call.
Find restaurants, shops, landmarks with coordinates ($0.01 USDC/call).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Latitude | |
| lon | No | Longitude | |
| limit | No | Max results | |
| query | Yes | What to find, e.g. 'coffee' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add one useful behavioral fact: the $0.01 USDC/call cost. It also implies the result includes coordinates. However, it does not disclose whether lat/lon are required inputs for coordinate-based search, how limits behave, or any rate/error behavior.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the cost, with no filler or repetition of schema details. It is appropriately sized for a simple search 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?
For a simple 4-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to make a basic query call. However, the ambiguous phrase 'with coordinates' and the lack of any return-format or default-limit information leave gaps, especially with no output schema and no annotations.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents query, lat, lon, and limit. The description adds only the example categories and the coordinate output, neither of which clarifies parameter meanings beyond the 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?
The description states a specific action ('Find') and a clear resource category ('restaurants, shops, landmarks') with a notable output ('coordinates'), so an agent can tell this is a location/places search rather than a generic web search. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like x402_search, but the resource scope is distinct enough to avoid confusion.
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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as x402_search or x402_weather, nor any conditions or exclusions. The only extra context is the price, which does not help with tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.