transita_match_visasScore a user's profile against every visa pathway Transita supports. Returns the top matches ranked by eligibility, with timeline, cost, and links to official sources. EU citizens automatically surface freedom-of-movement options first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | ||
| goal | No | ||
| timeline | No | ||
| education | No | ||
| income_usd | No | ||
| work_field | No | ||
| work_years | No | ||
| citizenship | Yes | ||
| current_country | No | ||
| target_countries | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (top matches, ranking, timeline, cost, links) and a specific behavioral nuance (EU citizens get freedom-of-movement options first). It doesn't explicitly state read-only or auth requirements, but the described behavior is complete for a matching tool.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. No filler; every sentence adds value, including the EU-specific behavior.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 params, no output schema), the description covers the return value and EU pattern but omits guidance on parameter usage (e.g., which optional fields matter, how citizenship interacts with target_countries). Minimum viable but with gaps.
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%, yet the description does not mention any of the 10 parameters (e.g., citizenship, age, goal). It only refers generically to 'profile,' leaving the agent to infer that profile fields map to the schema. This fails to compensate for the lack of in-schema descriptions.
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?
Description explicitly states the verb 'Score' and the resource 'a user's profile against every visa pathway Transita supports.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like 'compare_visas' or 'visa_details' by focusing on ranking all pathways for a profile.
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?
Provides clear context: use when you have a user profile and want matched visa pathways ranked by eligibility. Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for a typical agent to select it appropriately.
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 targets a distinct step in the visa advisory workflow: nationality-based discovery, country overview, profile matching, side-by-side comparison, single-visa details, and live programme status. The overlap between compare and match is resolved by their descriptions—one compares selected pathways while the other scores a full profile against all pathways.
All tools share the transita_ prefix and use snake_case, but the suffix pattern is mixed. compare_visas, match_visas, and search_by_nationality are verb-led, while country_overview, programme_status, and visa_details are noun-phrase outputs. The consistent prefix helps, but the inconsistent verb/noun structure makes the API less predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a specialized visa advisory server. Each tool addresses a distinct user need from discovery to status checking, and none feels redundant or out of place.
The tool surface covers the full user journey: exploring destinations, matching eligibility, comparing visas, viewing details, and checking current intake status. There is no direct 'list all visas for a country' endpoint, but match_visas and search_by_nationality provide usable workarounds for discovery.