Validate an Indian GSTIN: format and check-digit (base-36 checksum). Catches typos and fabricated numbers instantly. Runs locally — no API key required. Note: does NOT confirm active registration on the GST portal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gstin | Yes | 15-character GSTIN, e.g. 27AAPFU0939F1ZV |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description reveals important behaviors: local execution (no API required) and the limitation regarding active registration. This compensates for the lack of annotations.
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?
Three concise sentences (including a note) with no wasted words. The most critical information is front-loaded.
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 validation tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, method, execution environment, and limitations. No additional context is needed given the lack of output schema or nested objects.
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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of the parameter. The description adds value by specifying the GSTIN length and providing an example, reinforcing the format expectations.
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 clearly states the tool validates Indian GSTIN format and check-digit, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle document processing. The verb 'validate' and resource 'Indian GSTIN' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly notes the tool does NOT confirm active registration, guiding against misuse. It states runs locally with no API key, but does not mention alternative tools for active registration checks.
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 document processing task (compression, fraud detection, invoice extraction, statement parsing, conversion, reconciliation, GST validation) with clear descriptions that avoid overlap.
All tool names follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compress_pdf, validate_gstin), providing a predictable and uniform naming convention.
Seven tools cover the core capabilities for a PDF/document magic service focused on financial documents, balancing breadth without being overwhelming or sparse.
The set addresses key workflows (compress, convert, extract, parse, validate, reconcile), but misses general OCR or merge/split features. For the financial niche, it is nearly complete.
