Dirigeants actifs au RNE (INPI) pour une liste de SIREN, croisés avec le registre INSEE décès (statut vital + score). Clé API requise — le plan gratuit y a accès (1 SIREN par appel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sirens | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond annotations: an API key is required, the free plan has access, and only one SIREN is processed per call. This is valuable operational context.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core function, the second states constraints. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the understanding of the 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?
With no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose, inputs, key limitations, and hints at the output (vital status + score). It does not detail the full return structure, but for a simple retrieval tool with known inputs and constraints, it is sufficiently complete.
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 schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description clarifies that 'sirens' is a list of SIREN numbers and that 'api_key' is required, and it adds the free-plan limitation of 1 SIREN per call. This adds some meaning, but it does not specify SIREN format or how multiple sirens are handled if only one is allowed per call.
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 the tool retrieves active directors from RNE (INPI) for a list of SIRENs, cross-referenced with the INSEE death registry. It specifies the resource (directors) and the scope (list of SIRENs), and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like croiser_deces or resoudre_siren.
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 mentions the API key requirement and the free plan limit (1 SIREN per call), which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to prefer it over sibling tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., name-to-SIREN resolution vs SIRET verification), but croiser_deces and dirigeants_entreprise both involve death-registry matching, and the pair resoudre_siren/verifier_siret could initially confuse. However, the descriptions disambiguate well.
The naming mixes infinitive verbs (resoudre, verifier, croiser, diagnostiquer) with noun phrases (sante_entreprise, dirigeants_entreprise, surveillance_alertes), so there's no uniform verb_noun or noun pattern. Still, the names are reasonably readable and not chaotic.
With 8 tools, the server covers the core workflows of data validation, enrichment, scoring, and monitoring without bloat. Each tool addresses a distinct business need, and the count is well within the ideal range.
The surface covers identification, verification, scoring, and portfolio monitoring, but lacks a simple company detail retrieval endpoint (e.g., by SIREN) and a tool for updating/deleting non-portfolio data. These are minor gaps that can be worked around.
