Search the AYA registry (367,000+ verified businesses worldwide) by name, domain, sector or country. AYA is the open, sovereign registry AI agents query to find verified products & services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | name, domain, sector or country |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only search operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any nuances beyond stating it searches a registry.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value (what, where, scale, context).
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?
For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the registry, search criteria, and context. Lacks details on response format or pagination, but acceptable for a search operation.
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 50% (only query has description). The description adds context to the query parameter by listing searchable fields (name, domain, sector, country), but does not explain the limit parameter (e.g., max results), leaving a gap.
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 clearly states the tool searches the AYA registry by name, domain, sector, or country, specifying the scale (367,000+ businesses) and the registry's purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_company_details or claim_cashback.
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?
The description implies usage for searching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_company_details for specific company info) or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: cashback claiming, offer retrieval, company details, stats, indexing, and searching. No overlaps or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_cashback, get_cashback_offer, search_companies). No deviations.
Six tools is well-scoped for the registry and cashback domain, covering necessary operations without bloat or insufficiency.
Core CRUD-like operations are covered (search, get, add companies; cashback offer/claim). Minor gap: no update/delete for companies, but likely intentional for an open registry.
