Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

check_token_registry

Is this crypto-asset or its issuer MiCA-notified in the EU? Searches the official ESMA interim MiCA register token lists — e-money token (EMT) issuers, asset-referenced token (ART) issuers, and notified crypto-asset white papers — by issuer name, LEI, or Digital Token Identifier (DTI). Returns issuer, home member state, competent authority, DTIs and the official white-paper URL per match. Useful before trusting a stablecoin or token sold as EU-regulated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dtiNoDigital Token Identifier (ISO 24165)
leiNo20-character LEI of the issuer
issuerNoToken issuer name; provide this, 'lei' or 'dti'

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 input methods (issuer name, LEI, DTI) and return fields (issuer, home member state, authority, DTI, white-paper URL). However, it omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior on no match. This is adequate for a simple search tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence defines behavior and scope; second adds usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description explains what it does, what inputs are accepted, and what information is returned. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context that these are search keys and suggests using one of them. It doesn't add constraints or validation details, but the baseline is appropriate given the schema richness.

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 explicitly states the tool checks MiCA notification status by searching ESMA registers. It specifies the resource, search keys (issuer name, LEI, DTI), and return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on company/crypto checks.

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 provides a clear use case ('before trusting a stablecoin or token sold as EU-regulated'). It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context and sibling tools make the scope apparent.

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