Decision helper (free, no key): which e-invoice format a recipient needs and whether a plain PDF is still acceptable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipient_country | Yes | ||
| recipient_is_public_authority | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool is free and keyless and that it tells the user which format is needed and whether plain PDF is acceptable, but it does not explain how the decision is made, what the output looks like, or any limitations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the tool's role and key gating facts immediately and efficiently.
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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the agent needs more practical guidance than this description provides. It cannot determine what result to expect or how the input parameters influence the tool's behavior, leaving room for incorrect invocation.
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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining recipient_country or recipient_is_public_authority. The only connection is the vague word 'recipient,' which does not convey how the parameters affect the decision.
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 identifies a decision helper for selecting the correct e-invoice format and judging whether plain PDF is acceptable. This is a distinct purpose from the sibling generation/validation tools, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when unsure which e-invoice format a recipient requires or whether plain PDF suffices. It does not spell out exclusions or directly compare to alternatives, but the use case is unambiguous.
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 covers a distinct operation: credits, signup, format advice, XML generation, PDF/Factur-X generation, validation, and certificate lookup. Even generate_einvoice_xml and create_facturx_pdf are clearly differentiated by output format, so an agent should not misselect.
Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern like check_credits, generate_einvoice_xml, and validate_einvoice. The exceptions are signup (no underscore) and which_format_do_i_need (question-style phrase), which present minor but noticeable deviations.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an e-invoice API: each covers a meaningful step in the user journey from signup and credit checking to format selection, generation, validation, and verification. No tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The tool set provides a coherent end-to-end workflow: onboard with signup, check credits, determine the required format, generate XML or create a Factur-X PDF, validate the result, and look up verification certificates. There are no obvious dead ends for an agent attempting to produce and verify an e-invoice.