iban_checkValidate an IBAN by ISO 13616 structure and MOD-97-10 checksum (offline, no bank lookup).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes | IBAN to validate; spaces allowed. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| valid | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| country | No | ||
| normalized | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: validation is offline, has no bank lookup, and uses a specific algorithm, which tells the agent exactly what this tool will and will not do.
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?
One tight sentence delivers the core action, the exact validation standard, and a critical limitation ('offline, no bank lookup'). Every part adds decision-relevant value with no waste.
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?
With one fully documented required parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides all essential context: what is validated, how, and what is explicitly out of scope.
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 is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with type, requirement, description, and an example including spaces. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Validate'), names the exact resource ('an IBAN'), and states the validation method ('ISO 13616 structure and MOD-97-10 checksum'). The 'offline, no bank lookup' qualifier also distinguishes it from lookup-oriented bank tools among the siblings.
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 clearly signals when to use this tool: when an IBAN needs structural/checksum validation without bank involvement. It does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but 'offline, no bank lookup' gives enough context to avoid choosing it for account-status or balance inquiries.
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 identifier type or specific function (e.g., IBAN vs. EIN vs. block info), with no overlap even among similar validation routines. The batch and rental tools combine distinct sub-checks without ambiguity, making misselection unlikely.
Tool names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a descriptive pattern, but the action verbs vary (e.g., 'check', 'format', 'info', 'guard', 'verdict') rather than a single verb_noun structure. While clearly readable, the pattern is not perfectly uniform.
At 28 tools, the server feels like a broad utility pack rather than a focused domain. The count exceeds the 'heavy' threshold and includes three distinct sub-domains (financial identifiers, rental fraud, on-chain queries), making the surface area hard to navigate coherently.
The identifier validation coverage is thorough (most common checksums), rental checks cover risk, deposit, and verdict, and on-chain tools handle balances, activity, and settlement history. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no token transfer history, no generic identifier detection) but agents can likely work around them.