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 establish that this is read-only and idempotent, and the description adds the deterministic checksum algorithm, reinforcing the openWorldHint=false annotation. It clearly frames this as checksum-only validation without claiming registry or broader security-identifier verification.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and validation method without filler. Every phrase contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent checksum validator with an output schema present, the description plus annotations are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Return behavior is covered by the output schema, and the algorithm description fills the behavioral gap.
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 fully describes the single parameter as a "7-character SEDOL code," so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The description's geographic and algorithmic context is useful but does not change how the sedol parameter should be supplied or interpreted.
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 states a specific verb ("Validate"), a specific resource ("UK/Ireland security identifier"), and the exact method ("(1,3,1,7,3,9)-weight mod-10 checksum"). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like luhn_check and isin_check because it targets SEDOL specifically with a unique weighting scheme.
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 implies the tool is for SEDOL inputs by naming the identifier type and checksum, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as isin_check or luhn_check. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided.
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 data source: every checksum validation is for a specific standard (IBAN, LEI, VAT, etc.), and the on-chain and rental tools are clearly separate domains. There is no ambiguity between tools; even similar-sounding checks like 'luhn_check' and 'ean13_check' are distinct algorithms with explicit descriptions.
Most validation tools follow a 'X_check' pattern (iban_check, swift_bic_check, ein_format_check), but others deviate: 'company_number_format' uses a noun_noun structure, 'block_info' is noun_noun, and 'batch_validate' and 'context_distill' use verbs. While the pattern is not uniform, the names are readable and the convention is understandable, just not fully consistent.
With 28 tools, this server exceeds the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and even the 16-25 heavy range. The server covers multiple unrelated domains (identifier validation, blockchain queries, rental fraud, text processing), which inflates the count. While each tool is individually justified, the overall surface feels overly broad for a single MCP server.
For each sub-domain, coverage is strong: identifier validation includes a wide range of international standards, on-chain queries cover balances, activity, and settlement history, and rental tools provide risk, verdict, and deposit guard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no country-specific tax IDs beyond what's listed, no transaction history for arbitrary tokens), but the visible coverage is comprehensive for the stated purposes.