validate_ibanValida un IBAN (checksum MOD-97) e, per gli IBAN italiani, identifica la banca dal codice ABI. Gratis (€0), deterministico, nessun login richiesto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes | L'IBAN da validare (es. IT60X0542811101000000123456). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral context: it is free (possibly cost implication), deterministic (same input always same output), and requires no authentication. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the operation's cost, determinism, and accessibility.
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 extremely concise: two sentences containing only essential information. It front-loads the core function and then adds contextual details without redundancy.
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?
Given the simple input schema and no output schema, the description could have specified the return value (e.g., validation result plus bank details). It mentions identifying the bank but does not describe the output format. This gap moderately impacts completeness for an agent that needs to understand what the tool returns.
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 describes the 'iban' parameter with max length and example. The description does not add further parameter details beyond the schema's information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Valida' and the resource 'IBAN', specifies the MOD-97 checksum method, and adds the unique feature of identifying the bank for Italian IBANs. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling validation tools (e.g., validate_codice_fiscale) by naming a specific resource and operation.
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 context such as 'Gratis, deterministico, nessun login richiesto' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling validation tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative references are given. The guidance is implied by the resource name, but not 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.
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.