Get a single Czech company record by its IČO (8-digit Business ID). Returns official name, registered address, legal form, VAT ID (DIČ), founding date, and trade license activities. Returns null if IČO is not found in ARES.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ico | Yes | Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits. Examples: "11122234", "87654326". Auto-validated with MOD11 checksum. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: returns null when IČO is not found, returns specific fields, and sources from ARES. This goes beyond the annotation and is valuable for the agent.
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 tight sentences: the first states the action and input, the second lists return fields and null behavior. No wasted words, 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?
For a simple single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input, return contents, and edge case (not found). This is sufficient for an agent 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already provides detailed parameter semantics (7/8 digits, examples, MOD11 validation). The description adds no extra parameter meaning and even says '8-digit' while the schema permits 7 or 8 digits, though the schema clarifies this.
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 a specific action ('Get a single Czech company record by its IČO') and resource, and lists the exact returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/list tools by emphasizing 'single' record lookup.
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 context is clear: use when you have an IČO and need a single company record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'single' vs. sibling search tools is implicit.
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.