agentdata-nl

web_search_read

Search and read in one call: a web search plus the full page text of the top results, for $0.006 — cheaper than a separate search and reads. Send a query, get back compact results (position, title, url, snippet) each enriched with the target page's readable content (markdown or text, capped by max_chars_per_page). A page that fails to read carries a read_error instead of content; the call still delivers and settles. USDC on Base, no account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`num`	No	Number of results to search and read (1-5, default 3)
`lang`	No	Optional 2-letter language code for the results, e.g. 'en', 'nl'
`query`	Yes	The search query, plain text, max 400 characters
`format`	No	markdown (default) keeps #-headings, [text](url) links and - lists; text is flat plain text	markdown
`country`	No	Optional 2-letter country code to localise results, e.g. 'us', 'nl'
`max_chars_per_page`	No	Maximum content length per read page in characters (1000-20000, default 8000)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.006), error behavior (read_error, call settles), and result structure (position, title, url, snippet, content). Lacks details on rate limits or API source, but adequate for agent decision.

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?

Four sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with key benefit. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient overall.

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 outlines return format (position, title, url, snippet, content) and error case. Completeness is sufficient for a combined search-read tool.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds context like pricing and error handling but does not provide additional parameter-level detail 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 combines web search and reading in one call, distinguishing it from siblings like web_search and web_contents. It explicitly mentions 'Search and read in one call' and highlights cost savings.

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?

Describes when to use (when both search and reading are needed), mentions cost benefit over separate calls, and notes error handling for unreadable pages. No explicit when-not, but the context is clear.

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?