Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

request_capability

Free: tell us what you tried to buy here and could not — a coin, a country, a host, a network, a service. Every coverage rejection you get from a paid tool already hands you the exact arguments to send. It costs nothing, it is not a promise that it gets built, and only the coverage identifier is ever aggregated: free-text notes are never resold. Capped at 20 filings per caller per day. Budget behind your request? Use file_agent_want instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesWhat sort of coverage you are missing, e.g. 'coin', 'country', 'monitor_host', 'network', 'sms_service'
noteNoOptional free text for us; stored, never resold verbatim, never part of the demand report
valueYesThe exact value that is not covered, e.g. 'DOGE-EUR', 'PT', 'api.example.com'. Letters, digits, space and . _ : / - only — names, registration numbers and free text are rejected on purpose
endpointNoOptional: the paid endpoint path you were calling, e.g. '/crypto/verdict'. Unknown paths are stored as null

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Given no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the request is free, not a promise to build, only coverage identifier is aggregated, free-text notes are never resold, and the allowed characters for value. It also explains the note storage and privacy.

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 with key info front-loaded. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but overall efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description is very complete. It covers purpose, usage, limitations, privacy, and provides an alternative tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra meaning: it clarifies that 'note' is optional, stored but not resold, and provides constraints for 'value' (allowed characters). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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: reporting missing coverage (coin, country, host, etc.). It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes itself from the sibling file_agent_want, which handles budget requests.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (after a rejection from a paid tool) and when not to (for budget requests, use file_agent_want). It also mentions limitations (capped at 20 per caller per day) and free nature.

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