Search for companies by name (optionally scoped to a jurisdiction) via the OpenCorporates open API. Returns candidate companies for disambiguation. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Company name to search (partial match) | |
| limit | No | Max candidates to return | |
| jurisdiction | No | Optional jurisdiction code (e.g. gb, us_de) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explicitly states 'Read-only; price 0.0 (free)', which covers safety and cost. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is valuable. Could mention rate limits or pagination, but acceptable for a simple search.
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 concise sentences: first states purpose and API source, second adds key context (returns candidates, read-only, free). No redundancy, efficiently front-loaded.
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 3-param search tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety. Missing details like result format or error handling, but these are predictable for a search tool.
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 clear descriptions. Description adds little beyond 'optionally scoped to a jurisdiction' and 'partial match' which mirrors schema. 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?
Clearly states 'Search for companies by name (optionally scoped to a jurisdiction)' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like company_profile and officers by focusing on disambiguation 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?
Implicitly suggests use for initial disambiguation, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it. Mentions read-only and free, which is helpful for safety but not comparative.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.
The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.
For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.