sedol_checkValidate a UK/Ireland security identifier by its (1,3,1,7,3,9)-weight mod-10 checksum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sedol | Yes | 7-character SEDOL code. |
| 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=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying exact checksum behavior, clarifying that validation is purely algorithmic rather than a lookup against external data. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. The checksum weights are compactly embedded rather than elaborated unnecessarily. Every part of the sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior. The description's precise checksum specification fully disambiguates the operation for a simple validation tool. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter is already described as a '7-character SEDOL code.' The tool description does not add significant new parameter-level detail beyond framing it as a UK/Ireland security identifier, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 resource ('UK/Ireland security identifier') and names the exact method: the (1,3,1,7,3,9)-weight mod-10 checksum. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling identifier checks such as isin_check or isbn_check, even without opening their schemas.
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 states the intended use: validating SEDOL codes for UK/Ireland securities. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but the geographic/resource scope gives enough context to route an agent toward this tool versus other checks.
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.