lookup_atecoCerca e valida un codice ATECO 2007 ISTAT e restituisce la descrizione dell'attività. Gratis (€0), deterministico, nessun login richiesto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Il codice ATECO (solo cifre e punti, es. 62.01). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond annotations by declaring it's free and requires no login. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. No contradiction.
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, informative sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence provides essential information.
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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, cost, determinism, and authentication requirements.
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% for the single parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., example format) beyond the schema constraints.
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 looks up and validates an ATECO 2007 ISTAT code and returns the activity description. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'search_ateco' which likely does a broader search.
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?
Description mentions it's free, deterministic, and requires no login, which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'search_ateco'.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, targeting specific tax/compliance operations. The pair 'parse_fatturapa' and 'parse_verify_fatturapa' are similar but differentiated by the verification step. The detailed descriptions further reduce ambiguity.
Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with prefixes like 'calc_', 'validate_', 'lookup_', 'parse_', 'nis2_', etc. Minor deviations exist (e.g., 'compose_f24' vs 'calc_forfettario', 'intrastat_compose' vs 'intrastat_periodicity') but overall the pattern is clear.
With 23 tools, the set is on the heavier side for a single server, covering many subdomains of Italian tax and compliance. While each tool seems purposeful, the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3-15), making it slightly overwhelming.
The tool surface covers a wide array of Italian tax and compliance needs: tax calculations, F24 composition, INTRASTAT, ATECO, NIS2, FatturaPA, and validations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no IRPEF or IRAP calculators), but the core tax workflows are well supported.