Free with a feed_handle: send up to 50 hosts you are about to pay and get their last observed status, payTo and price, plus anything that changed since your cursor. One call before a batch of payments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hosts | Yes | Hostnames or full URLs, max 50 | |
| cursor | No | Sequence you last saw; omit to use your subscription start | |
| feed_handle | Yes | Handle returned when you subscribed |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the call is free, takes up to 50 hosts, and returns status, payTo, price, and cursor changes. However, it does not explain error conditions (e.g., invalid feed_handle, unsupported hosts), rate limits, or guarantee of freshness. Adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with key qualifier 'Free with a feed_handle' and then succinctly states action and expected output. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description lists returned fields. Complexity is low (simple check). With many sibling tools, this description provides sufficient context for use. Lacks details on error handling or pagination, but acceptable for a one-call utility tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so parameters are documented. The description adds meaning: 'hosts you are about to pay' clarifies purpose, 'anything that changed since your cursor' elaborates cursor usage, and 'Free with a feed_handle' gives context for feed_handle. Adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action: 'send up to 50 hosts' and get status, payTo, price, and changes since cursor. It distinguishes from sibling tools like x402_network_feed_since by focusing on checking specific hosts before payment. The verb 'check' is implied and context clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: 'One call before a batch of payments' and 'Free with a feed_handle' indicating when to use and cost. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling set includes similar tools and the use case is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.