agentdata-nl

web_search

Google-quality web search for AI agents at $0.004 per search — the lowest x402 rate for full search results. Send a query, get back compact JSON built for LLM consumption: top organic results (position, title, url, snippet), the direct answer when one exists, a trimmed knowledge graph and related searches. Tune with num (1-10 results), country and language (2-letter codes). Zero results is a valid, honest answer. Pay per call in USDC, 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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses output structure (organic results, direct answer, knowledge graph, related searches), pricing, and that zero results are valid. However, it omits error behavior, rate limits, and whether the tool is read-only.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the most critical information (pricing and purpose). Every sentence serves a purpose, though the pricing detail could be considered extraneous for selection but relevant for cost-aware agents.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (position, title, url, snippet, etc.) and tuning options. It is fairly complete for a web search tool, though it lacks details on error responses and pagination.

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 adds value by summarizing parameter usage ('Tune with num...') but does not significantly expand beyond schema descriptions. The extra context is marginal.

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 it performs web search for AI agents, specifying output format and distinguishing from siblings like web_images and web_search_read. It uses a specific verb ('search') and describes the resource ('web'), making it easy to differentiate.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains how to tweak parameters (num, country, language) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like web_search_read. It lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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?