lei_checkValidate a Legal Entity Identifier (ISO 17442 + ISO 7064 MOD-97-10 check digits).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | Yes | 20-character Legal Entity Identifier. |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavior beyond that by specifying the exact validation scope: ISO 17442 structure plus ISO 7064 MOD-97-10 check digits. It does not describe error handling or invalid-input behavior, but the existing output schema reduces that burden.
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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose or validation method.
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 validator with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It states what is validated, which standards apply, and the specific algorithm involved, so an agent has enough information to call 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 input schema already describes the 'lei' parameter as a 20-character Legal Entity Identifier, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by naming the applicable ISO standards and the MOD-97-10 check-digit rule, which deepens the agent's understanding of what valid input must satisfy.
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') and a clearly defined resource ('Legal Entity Identifier'), and it adds the governing standards (ISO 17442 + ISO 7064 MOD-97-10). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the many sibling check tools by naming a unique identifier type.
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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need to validate a Legal Entity Identifier. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the unique resource name provides enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.