Lightweight version of get_dd_report — returns just the numeric score (0-100), risk level, and top triggered red flags. Faster when you only need a yes/no/maybe screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ico | Yes | Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds what data is returned (score, risk level, flags) and a performance trait ('Faster'), which is consistent with annotations and provides useful context beyond the safety profile.
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 sentences: first sentence lists returned fields and frames the tool as lightweight; second gives the usage scenario. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 1-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content, and usage context adequately. It could mention error behavior (e.g., invalid ICO) but is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke 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% with the parameter 'ico' already described as 'Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('returns') and resource (numeric score 0-100, risk level, red flags), and explicitly distinguishes itself as 'Lightweight version of get_dd_report' while naming a sibling tool. This makes the purpose unmistakable.
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?
Explicitly identifies get_dd_report as the alternative and provides a clear usage condition: 'Faster when you only need a yes/no/maybe screen.' This gives strong when-to-use guidance, though it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause.
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: address crowding, nominee directors, phoenix patterns, owners, statutory chains, timelines, and watch functionality are all separate. However, get_dd_report and get_risk_score overlap significantly (full report vs. just the score), and the three detect_* tools share a similar pattern but apply to different risk types.
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (detect_, get_, watch_), but person_companies breaks this convention (noun_noun). The mix of detect_ and get_ verbs is consistent within their respective semantic groups, making the overall pattern readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a due-diligence domain. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect (risk detection, reports, ownership, monitoring) without unnecessary bloat, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal range.
The server covers the core due-diligence lifecycle reasonably well: company facts, risk scoring, timeline, ownership, EU lookup, and monitoring onboarding. Minor gaps exist—watch_entity is a stub, and advanced features are explicitly deferred to a companion server (ddplus)—but these are acknowledged and don't break the primary workflows.