Structural format validation only for a SWIFT/BIC code: 8 or 11 characters (4 letters bank code + 2 letters country code + 2 alphanumeric location code + optional 3 alphanumeric branch code). The country code is not cross-checked against ISO 3166-1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | identifier or value to check |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| valid | Yes | ||
| reason | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only format validation is performed (not cross-checking against ISO 3166-1). It also specifies exact length and composition rules. Minor gap: does not mention case sensitivity or response format, but overall transparent for a simple format checker.
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, zero wasted words. First sentence delivers purpose and format; second sentence clarifies limitation. Extremely efficient and 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 and a well-known standard, the description covers everything needed: what it validates, the exact format, its limitation. The presence of an output schema (not shown) is acceptable; the description does not need to explain return values.
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?
The single parameter 'value' has a generic schema description ('identifier or value to check'). The tool description adds significant meaning by specifying the expected format (8 or 11 characters with detailed segment breakdown), which helps the agent provide correct input.
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 clearly states it performs 'structural format validation only' for a SWIFT/BIC code and specifies the exact format (8 or 11 characters with breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling validators (ean, iban, isbn, luhn, vateu) by naming the specific standard and limiting scope.
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?
The description explicitly says 'only' structural validation and notes that country code is not cross-checked, guiding when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for country validation, which would have made it a 5. Still clear context.
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 validates a completely distinct type of identifier (barcodes, IBANs, ISBNs, Luhn-based numbers, SWIFT/BIC codes, and EU VAT numbers). There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate the specific format and algorithm used.
All six tools follow an identical naming pattern: the lowercase identifier name followed by '_validate'. This consistent noun_verb structure makes it easy for an agent to predict the tool name for any identifier type.
With six tools covering the most common checksum-based identifiers (barcodes, IBANs, ISBNs, payment cards, SWIFT/BIC, EU VAT), the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary redundancy or excessive complexity.
The tool set covers the major standardized identifiers that rely on checksums or structural validation. While additional identifiers like VIN or SSN could be added, the current selection represents a natural and comprehensive set for a 'Checksum Validator' server.