Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

check_crypto_firm

Is this crypto firm authorised in the EU? One call checks the official ESMA interim MiCA register of authorised crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) AND the EU non-compliant entities warning list. Search by firm name, platform website/domain, or LEI. Returns authorisation details (member state, competent authority, authorised services, LEI) and any warning-list entries, each with an official source reference. Firms only. Counterparty/scam check before sending funds to a platform.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leiNo20-character LEI code (ISO 17442)
nameNoCrypto firm name; provide this, 'website' or 'lei'
websiteNoPlatform website or domain (strongest match)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool queries two sources, returns authorisation details and warning-list entries, and notes the focus on firms. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the behavioral description is adequate for a simple lookup tool.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear question and then detailing the function. It is concise but could be slightly tighter—e.g., the first sentence could be merged with the next. However, it remains efficient and informative.

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 fully explains what the tool returns: authorisation details (member state, competent authority, services, LEI) and warning-list entries with official references. It also provides usage context and scope. This is complete for its 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%; all three parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining how to search (by name, website, or LEI) and noting that website provides the strongest match. This goes beyond the schema's definitions.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: checking if a crypto firm is authorised in the EU. It names the specific registers (ESMA interim MiCA register and EU non-compliant entities warning list) and differentiates from sibling tools which check other jurisdictions or entity types.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for 'Counterparty/scam check before sending funds to a platform.' It also states 'Firms only,' implying it is not for individuals. While it does not list alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance.

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

All agentdata-nl toolsInspect
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