Aides financement ENR en DOM : Chèque TIC Région, BPI France, ADEME, FEDER 2021-2027, cumul minimis. Prix : 0.050 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_tx_hash | No | Hash tx USDC Base. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds price information ('Prix : 0.050 USDC') and domain content, but it does not disclose the payment workflow, such as the role of payment_tx_hash or potential errors without payment.
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 extremely short and front-loaded with the main noun phrase, listing key programs without fluff. It loses a point for lacking an explicit verb, which would make the purpose clearer.
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 paid tool with no output schema, the description should explain the payment flow and what the agent will receive. It only lists content topics and price, leaving significant gaps in usage context and expected behavior.
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 schema already describes 'payment_tx_hash' as 'Hash tx USDC Base,' giving 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by connecting the parameter to the cost ('Prix : 0.050 USDC'), clarifying that the hash is likely for payment.
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 identifies the resource ('Aides financement ENR en DOM') and lists specific program names, distinguishing it from sibling tools about solar, water, or biodiversity. However, it lacks an explicit verb; the tool name 'caribbean_get_financement_dom' supplies the action.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like caribbean_get_eau_dom or caribbean_get_raccordement. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases.
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 domains (solar, biodiversity, water, etc.), but the pair caribbean_get_marches_publics and caribbean_get_marches_publics_dom overlap significantly, differing only in geographic scope. The sub-group of 'caye' tools (marche, vanille, vetiver) are also thematically similar, though descriptions clarify their specific commodities. Overall, an agent could generally select correctly, but a few boundary cases exist.
The tools overwhelmingly follow a caribbean_get_<subject> convention, with only two exceptions: caribbean_analyse_solaire (uses 'analyse' instead of 'get') and caribbean_list_marketplace (uses 'list' instead of 'get'). This makes the pattern predictable and readable, with minor deviations that are still intuitive. The subject names are consistently descriptive, though some use abbreviations like 'dom' and 'oa' that might require context.
24 tools is on the heavy side for a single server, particularly given that many tools are single-purpose data lookups (e.g., biodiversity, eDNA, tourism). The count is justifiable for a wide-ranging Caribbean data API, but it risks overwhelming an agent with a large surface. It is not excessive enough to be absurd, but it's in the 'heavy' zone.
The server covers multiple domains comprehensively, such as solar energy (tariffs, irradiation, connection, tax credit, financing) and public contracts (Guadeloupe and all DOM). The marketplace meta-tools (llms_txt, list_marketplace, get_provider) ensure discoverability, but there is no general search or aggregation tool. Some areas like agriculture or real estate beyond what's present could be considered gaps, but the core coverage is solid.