get_api_v1_getCountryCodeReturns a list of all countries supported by the ViewCaller API, including country name, dialing code, ISO codes, population, area, and GDP information. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds useful behavior details: it notes billing per call (1 Credit) and scopes results to 'all countries supported by the ViewCaller API.' However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or lack of side effects, though 'returns' implies a read operation.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the output, scope, and billing. No filler or redundant 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 parameter-less list retrieval, the description covers the key output fields and billing. It could mention potential pagination or ordering, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter information to add beyond the empty 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 the tool returns a list of all countries supported by the ViewCaller API with specific fields (name, dialing code, ISO codes, etc.). It uses a specific verb 'returns' and identifies the resource, making it distinct from the sibling search 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_api_v1_search. The description only explains what it does, leaving the agent to infer use cases without explicit direction.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a static list of country metadata, the other performs a phone number lookup. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a similar pattern with 'get_api_v1_' prefix, but the second part is inconsistent: 'getCountryCode' uses camelCase while 'search' is a bare verb. The prefix suggests an API endpoint structure rather than a consistent verb_noun convention.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a service that likely offers more functionality (e.g., reverse phone lookup, carrier info, validation). However, for a minimal API wrapper, two tools could be acceptable, so it's borderline.
The domain appears to be phone number lookup and country data, but the surface is severely limited. Missing obvious operations like phone number validation, detailed lookup results, or carrier information. The country list tool is a static reference, and the search tool is the only functional operation, leaving significant gaps.