agentdata-nl

buy_phone_number

Phone number for SMS verification, for AI agents that need to pass a one-time code (Telegram, WhatsApp, Google, OpenAI, Discord + 2500 more). You pay only when a real code arrives — no code, no charge. Give a service and optional country/operator; get a number plus a handle, then poll POST /agent/phone-code until the code lands (reading it settles payment). Dynamic price per request (in the 402), USDC via x402, no account or KYC. Lawful one-time verification only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`country`	No	Optional country slug, e.g. 'england', 'usa' (default: server config)
`service`	Yes	Platform to verify for, lowercase, e.g. 'telegram', 'whatsapp', 'google', 'discord', 'openai'
`operator`	No	Optional operator slug, default 'any'

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: pay-on-code-arrival model, dynamic pricing, USDC via x402, no account/KYC requirement, and lawful use only. The polling mechanism with POST /agent/phone-code is also mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat lengthy but front-loads the main purpose and each sentence adds essential information. It is well-structured but could be slightly more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (a number and handle) and how to poll for the code. It covers the full lifecycle and expected behavior, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'country' and 'operator' are optional, listing example service values, and summarizing the overall usage pattern ('Give a service and optional country/operator').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to buy a phone number for SMS verification. It specifies the verb 'buy' and resource 'phone number', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_phone_code' by focusing on the acquisition step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (for one-time code verification) and outlines the process. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context and sibling tools make it clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agentdata-nl tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources

Need Help?