Add a NIP to monitoring. You get notified (via changes_since or email) when its VAT status, bank account, or registry data shown on the Ministry of Finance White List (name, address, KRS, REGON) changes. Requires a skanfirmy API key (Authorization: Bearer, or the api_key argument). Free plan: up to 10 NIPs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nip | Yes | 10-digit NIP to monitor. | |
| api_key | No | skanfirmy API key (if not provided in the Authorization header). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals auth requirements (Bearer or api_key), notification channels (changes_since or email), the specific data being monitored, and the free-plan cap of 10 NIPs. It does not mention duplicate-add behavior or success/error responses.
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 three sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral and preconditions details. Every sentence adds value.
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 two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, authentication, notification behavior, monitored fields, and usage limits. The absence of an output schema means return-format details are not explicitly addressed, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both nip and api_key. The description adds little beyond what the schema states; it repeats the 10-digit constraint and the Authorization header fallback.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a NIP to monitoring.' It also clarifies what kinds of changes trigger notifications, which distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like sprawdz_nip (one-time check) and unobserve_nip (removal).
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 clearly conveys the use case: ongoing monitoring of a NIP. It also gives preconditions (API key required) and a plan limit. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternative one-time lookup siblings or state 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: checking a single NIP, bulk-checking NIPs, checking a bank account, validating VIES, and searching registers are clearly separated. Some minor overlap exists between sprawdz_nip and sprawdz_lista_nip, and between changes_since and list_observations, but the descriptions clarify the individual vs. bulk and change-history vs. current-state distinctions.
Naming mixes English verbs (observe_nip, list_observations, set_webhook) with Polish verbs (generuj_mikrorachunek, oblicz_odsetki, sprawdz_nip, szukaj_pkd), making the convention feel inconsistent. Additionally, changes_since is a noun phrase rather than a verb-based action, breaking the overall verb_noun pattern.
14 tools is well within a reasonable range for a business-information and monitoring server. Each tool corresponds to a distinct operation, and the number feels appropriate for the scope of checking Polish business registers, VAT validation, interest calculation, and NIP monitoring.
The tool surface covers the core domain well: single and bulk VAT checks, bank account verification, REGON and VIES lookups, PKD search, micro-account generation, interest calculation, and a full monitoring lifecycle (observe, list, changes, webhook, unobserve). Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated webhook-status listing and limited detailed KRS fetching, but agents can accomplish expected workflows.