validate_partita_ivaValida una Partita IVA italiana (11 cifre + checksum Luhn). Gratis (€0), deterministico, nessun login richiesto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| partita_iva | Yes | La Partita IVA da validare (11 cifre, es. 12345678903). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior; description adds useful transparency about cost, determinism, and lack of authentication requirements, though it does not describe error handling or output format.
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?
Single concise sentence covering tool purpose and key attributes with no redundant 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 validation tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete, covering input format and behavioral traits, though it could mention the output (e.g., boolean success or error message).
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% with a clear parameter description including example. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
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 'Valida una Partita IVA italiana' with specific format details (11 cifre + checksum Luhn), distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_codice_fiscale or validate_iban.
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 (free, deterministic, no login) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites.
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.