agentdata-nl

web_images

Google Images search for AI agents at $0.004 per call, from the same Serper.dev source as /web/search. Send a query, get back compact JSON: top image results with position, title, image URL, source page link and dimensions. Tune with num (1-10 results), country and language (2-letter codes). Zero results is a valid, honest answer. Pay per call in USDC on Base, no account, no API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`num`	No	Number of results to return (1-10, default 5)
`lang`	No	Optional 2-letter language code for the results, e.g. 'en', 'nl'
`query`	Yes	The search query, plain text, max 400 characters
`country`	No	Optional 2-letter country code to localise results, e.g. 'us', 'nl'

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Disclosed pricing ($0.004/call), source (Serper.dev), payment method (USDC on Base, no account/API key needed), and behavior on zero results ('valid, honest answer'). No annotations provided, so the description fully compensates, exceeding typical transparency.

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 a single paragraph but is dense and efficient. Every sentence adds value (pricing, source, output format, parameters, zero results). Could be slightly more structured, but it's well within acceptable conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description clearly explains the return values (top image results with fields: position, title, image URL, source page link, dimensions). This covers what the agent needs to know. With 4 parameters (1 required), the description is complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter tuning (num, country, language) but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema; noting zero results validity is helpful but doesn't affect parameter semantics significantly.

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 'Google Images search for AI agents', specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'Google Images'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the same source as web_search and the specific image result format.

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 says 'Send a query, get back compact JSON' and explains parameters for tuning, implying when to use (for image search). It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but given sibling names like web_search and web_scholar, the differentiation is clear enough.

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?