get4agent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one useful extra fact — 'Free' (no key/auth cost) plus the upstream source (Frankfurter/ECB) — but says nothing about freshness (latest vs historical), caching, or rate limits.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with the source and free-of-charge note placed before anything else. The fragmentary telegraphic style and the redundant 'base + symbols' clause keep it from being a model of efficient structure, but there is essentially no wasted text.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what is returned (rate values, dates of quotes) or whether rates are latest-only, which is material for an FX tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description's 'base + symbols' merely restates the parameter names and adds no semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names a specific resource (official ECB cross-rates sourced from Frankfurter), which is enough for an agent to know this returns FX quotes. It lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling kzt_rates, which also returns exchange rates, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kzt_rates, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance. The only usage-adjacent information is 'Free,' which hints at no API key being required but says nothing about selection between tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful return context by naming the JSON-LD format and key fields such as price, seller, verification status, and purchase URL.

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 wasted wording. It communicates the action and the returned content 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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough return-format context and the annotations cover safety behavior. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning not-found or error behavior, but no critical calling information is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema fully describes it as a listing UUID from search_listings with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the high schema coverage warrants the baseline score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get one listing, returned as schema.org Product JSON-LD. It clearly describes the returned fields, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_listings tool.

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 required listing_id and schema note that the UUID comes from search_listings imply the tool is used to retrieve a single listing after searching. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus search_listings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds two traits not in annotations: data is cached hourly (freshness/staleness expectations) and the service is free (no cost gating). It stops short of noting whether a stale cached value can be forced to refresh.

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?

One tight line with the resource and quote direction front-loaded, plus the useful cached-hourly parenthetical. The trailing 'Free.' fragment is terse to the point of being cryptic, and 'etc' leaves the supported currency set unspecified.

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 should say what comes back (a code-to-rate mapping, ordering, or partial-result behavior), and it does not. It covers freshness and cost but leaves the response shape ambiguous for a tool with no output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single `codes` parameter is fully documented in the schema including the ISO 4217 format and the omit-for-all default. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond reinforcing USD/EUR as examples, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (KZT exchange rates) and clarifies the quote direction — KZT per unit of USD/EUR — which is a real semantic detail, not a restatement of the name. It never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling fx_rates, so an agent must infer that this is the KZT-scoped variant.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, and notably no statement about when to pick this over the sibling fx_rates. The 'omit for all' default lives in the schema, not the description, so routing relies entirely on the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: public GLEIF provenance, no cost ('Free'), and the shape of the payload ('compact due-diligence records'). It does not disclose no-match behavior or rate limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the two usage modes, then the value proposition. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 two-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: source, input modes, and rough result character. The notable gap is the zero-required-parameter case and what a name search returns (single best match vs candidate list), which an agent would need to know before calling.

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 100% and both parameters carry examples, so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description only restates the exact-vs-name-search split that the schema itself encodes ('legal name to search when no LEI is known'), adding no new syntax or matching semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('legal-entity lookup') plus the authoritative source (GLEIF open data), which is far more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of the listed siblings (validate_iin, verify_agent, search_listings) overlaps in resource, so confusion risk is low.

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 the routing rule between the two modes: pass 'lei' for an exact match, or 'q' for a name search. It leaves open what to do when neither is supplied (both parameters are optional) or which takes precedence if both are given, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation is public with no authentication, and each result carries a price, seller and purchase URL. It does not mention result limits, pagination or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the result-shape and access notes follow compactly. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 usefully explains what a result contains (price, seller, buy URL) and that no auth is needed. For a simple four-optional-parameter search this is close to sufficient, though it omits anything about result count, pagination or sort order.

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 100%, so all four parameters (kind, query, category, verified_only) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and a default for verified_only. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — searching get4agent's catalog of services and data APIs — which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_listing (single-item lookup) and from the unrelated utility siblings (fx_rates, lei_lookup, weather). It stops short of explicitly naming get_listing as the alternative for a known item, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Search get4agent's catalog'. The note 'Public, no sign-in' is a helpful precondition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to search versus calling get_listing, nor on how to narrow results when the catalog is large.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real context beyond them: it identifies the authoritative upstream (official kazpost.kz domain) and discloses that the call is free, which tells an agent there is no billing/auth cost to worry about. It omits failure behavior for an invalid or unknown barcode.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering action, input, output and source, plus a two-word cost note. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, source and the shape of the result (status + route events), which compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gap: no indication of what happens when the barcode is not found or the parcel is unknown.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already specifies the 13-character barcode format with an example (RR123456789KZ). The description only restates 'by barcode' and adds the domestic-number allowance already implied by the schema, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (track) and resource (a Kazakhstan Post parcel) plus what comes back (status + route events) and the upstream source (official track.kazpost.kz). No sibling in the list (fx_rates, weather, lei_lookup, etc.) overlaps with parcel tracking, so differentiation is inherent.

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 'by barcode' phrasing implies the prerequisite and thus when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for parcel lookup. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond simple validation by disclosing a key behavior: it parses the structure (birth date/sex or registration) upon successful validation. It also adds the operational constraint that the service is free.

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 definition is highly concise, condensing the core function, its parsing capabilities, and its operational cost into a single, dense sentence that captures maximum value.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description is highly complete by explicitly detailing the expected structural output: parsed birth date/sex or entity registration, giving the agent full context about the response.

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?

While the schema provides the 12-digit format, the description provides critical domain knowledge that the schema misses—namely, that the input serves two different functions (IIN for person, BIN for entity) and what those components parse into.

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 tool clearly states its function (validate Kazakhstan IIN/BIN) using specific terminology, distinguishing it from general validation tools like validate_kz_iban found in the sibling list.

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 provides operational context by stating it is 'Free,' but it lacks explicit guidance on when this specific checksum/parsing tool should be used versus other general validation methods.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the validation standard (mod-97 plus KZ structural rules) and cost, but does not say what an invalid input produces (boolean vs error message), leaving the outcome shape implicit.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the algorithm in parentheses; the 'Free.' tag is terse and non-disruptive. Nothing here wastes the agent's attention.

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 one-parameter validator with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the return-value semantics, which an output schema would normally cover but does not exist here.

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 100%, and the schema already spells out the 20-character KZ format with spaces allowed and an example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (validate) and resource (Kazakhstan IBAN), and adds the underlying algorithm (ISO 7064 mod-97 + KZ structure), so the purpose is unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling validate_iin, but the different resource makes the split inferable.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only added clause is 'Free.', which says nothing about invocation context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context the annotations do not: it hits a live external service (Open-Meteo) and costs nothing. It does not disclose units, timezone handling, forecast granularity, or failure behavior for out-of-range coordinates.

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?

A single dense line, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. It is arguably too compressed rather than too long — the brevity is a coverage problem, not a waste problem, so structure is rewarded but not perfect.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, most of what an agent needs is already present elsewhere. However, there is no output schema, so the description is the only place to signal what actually comes back — units (C vs F), temperature vs precipitation fields, and how the 3-day portion is structured are all absent.

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 100%, with both lat and lon documented including format, valid ranges, and worked examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only names 'lat/lon' and adds no format, ordering, or rounding constraints beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource (weather), the scope (current conditions plus a 3-day range), the input domain (lat/lon), and the upstream provider (Open-Meteo). The phrase '3-day range' is slightly ambiguous — it reads as a 3-day forecast but never says 'forecast' — which keeps it short of a 5. No sibling operates in this domain (fx_rates, validate_iin, track_parcel), so no differentiation is required.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all — no mention of whether it is meant for a point lookup versus a listing's location, no prerequisite or fallback. The only decision-relevant cue is the trailing 'Free.', which hints at cost but does not route the agent to any alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.