Get current statutory body (jednatelé, představenstvo, etc.) of a Czech company — who can legally act on its behalf. Returns active members only (with valid zápis, not yet removed). Essential for due diligence and compliance checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ico | Yes | Czech IČO (7-8 digits). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint already declaring the safe read nature, the description adds that it 'Returns active members only (with valid zápis, not yet removed),' which is a key behavioral detail about filtering and data freshness. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 two sentences: the first states purpose and meaning, the second adds behavioral detail and use case. No wasted words, and key information is 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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what it returns (active members), the legal context, and the use case. This provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
The single parameter ico is fully described in the schema as 'Czech IČO (7-8 digits).' The description reinforces that the tool targets Czech companies but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource: statutory body of a Czech company, with clarifying examples (jednatelé, představenstvo) and explanation of legal significance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bank_accounts or search_companies.
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?
It explicitly states 'Essential for due diligence and compliance checks,' providing a clear use case. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Czech company data: VAT status, bank accounts, historical changes, statutory bodies, basic lookup by IČO, address search, NACE search, combined search, DIČ validation, and monitoring. No significant overlap.
All tools use consistent snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_vat_payer, get_statutaries, search_companies). No mixing of conventions.
10 tools is appropriate for the domain of Czech company information, covering lookups, searches, VAT checks, history, and monitoring. Not excessive nor insufficient.
Core operations for the ARES domain are covered: lookup, search, VAT and DIČ checks, history, and statutory data. The watch_entity tool is a stub, and there might be missing advanced queries, but the set is largely complete for intended use.