agentdata-nl

web_scholar

Google Scholar search (papers with citation counts) 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 papers with position, title, url, publication info, snippet, year and citation count. 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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pricing, payment method, that zero results is valid, and output format. This gives sufficient behavioral insight for an agent.

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?

Four sentences, clear and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, pricing, output structure, parameters, expected results, payment. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema, but description explains return fields. Covers source, pricing, payment model. Could mention rate limits or error handling but not necessary for typical usage. Adequate for a search tool with sibling differentiation.

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 already documents all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description reinforces tuning with num, country, lang but adds no new semantic details beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description explicitly states it performs Google Scholar search for papers with citation counts, and lists the output fields (title, url, publication info, year, citation count). This clearly distinguishes it from general web search or news search siblings.

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?

Provides context such as same source as /web/search and mentions zero results indicate no papers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like web_search or news_search.

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?