Check whether a bank account number (NRB) appears in the VAT White List for a given NIP. Due diligence for payments above PLN 15,000.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nip | Yes | 10-digit NIP of the counterparty. | |
| numerRachunku | Yes | 26-digit bank account number (NRB), without the PL prefix. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check whether' strongly implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not state side-effect-free behavior, response format, data source freshness, or any access constraints. It is adequate but minimal.
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 short sentences deliver the operation, the resource, and the business context with no repetition or filler. Every sentence 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?
For a simple two-parameter lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by 'Check whether,' which implies a yes/no or confirmation-style result, but the description does not explicitly describe the response.
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 fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the NIP or NRB beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource: checking whether an NRB account number appears in the VAT White List for a given NIP. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sprawdz_nip or sprawdz_lista_nip, which check NIPs themselves rather than account numbers.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: due diligence for payments above PLN 15,000. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.
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.