validate_cuitValidates an Argentine CUIT or CUIL number. Returns parsed components (prefix, body, check digit), person type, and whether the check digit is mathematically correct. Accepts any format: raw digits, hyphened (20-12345678-9), or spaced. This tool runs the REAL check-digit algorithm — not a demo fixture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuit | Yes | CUIT/CUIL in any format (digits, hyphens, or spaces). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it lists the return components (prefix, body, check digit, person type, and check digit correctness) and emphasizes that it runs the 'REAL check-digit algorithm' rather than a demo fixture. This goes beyond the structured fields and gives the agent confidence in the tool's authenticity, though it omits potential error handling for malformed inputs.
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 three compact sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the function, enumerating return values, and highlighting the real algorithm. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the input format flexibility, the exact return fields, and the authenticity guarantee. For a validation tool of this complexity, no further context is necessary to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'cuit' described as 'CUIT/CUIL in any format (digits, hyphens, or spaces)'. The description's mention of 'Accepts any format: raw digits, hyphened (20-12345678-9), or spaced' largely restates the schema, adding only a concrete example. This reinforces but does not meaningfully extend the schema's meaning, so a 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 opens with 'Validates an Argentine CUIT or CUIL number', which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. This uniquely distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all focused on inventory, sales, or shipping operations, none of which involve CUIT validation.
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 clear context: it validates Argentine fiscal identifiers and returns parsed components. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternative tools, but since no sibling tool overlaps with this function, explicit exclusion is unnecessary. The context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool when faced with a CUIT/CUIL validation task.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.