Standardize a country name and return comprehensive info: ISO codes (2/3-letter, 3-digit), currency details, internet code, and calling code. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | Country name in any language or format | |
| algorithm | No | Algorithm variant (optional, defaults to 'ai-medium') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no indication of side effects, while annotations set destructiveHint=true, creating confusion. The cost note is helpful, but behavioral traits beyond annotations are missing.
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 sentences cover the essential purpose and cost with no redundancy, making it highly concise.
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?
The description lists return fields (ISO codes, currency, etc.) but lacks details on output format, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some gaps despite the tool's simplicity.
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 description adds that country names can be in any language and algorithm defaults to 'ai-medium', but these match the schema descriptions; no additional meaning is provided.
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 it standardizes a country name and returns comprehensive info (ISO codes, currency, internet code, calling code), distinguishing it from similar tools like interzoid_country_standard and interzoid_currency_rate.
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 implies usage for retrieving country details but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives, leaving guidance to the sibling list.
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.
Most tools target distinct data operations (matching, standardization, enrichment) with clear descriptions. Minor overlaps exist, e.g., address_match_advanced vs global_address_match, but descriptions differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent 'interzoid_descriptive_function' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict purpose from the name.
58 tools is high for a single server, exceeding the typical 3-15 range. While each serves a specific data enrichment function, the quantity may overwhelm agents without clear categorization.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including address, company, person, and financial data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no reverse IP lookup, limited social media coverage), but core data needs are well-addressed.
