Translate an industry classification code between schemes (NOGA 2008/2025, NACE 2.0/2.1, ISIC 4). Returns all mappings with their type (exact, partial, aggregated, derived) and notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Source classification code (e.g. '01', '6201', '47.91') | |
| source | Yes | ||
| target | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns all mappings with their type (exact, partial, aggregated, derived) and notes, revealing the output structure and the possibility of multiple mappings. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not discuss error conditions or side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and output format without waste. Every phrase adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains the return value (all mappings with type and notes). It covers the essential aspects of the tool—input code and target schemes—and is adequate for a moderate-complexity translation tool. It does not address edge cases like invalid codes or not-found behavior, but this is not critical given its simplicity.
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 only 33% (only 'code' has a description). The description compensates by naming the full schemes (NOGA 2008/2025, NACE 2.0/2.1, ISIC 4), which directly clarifies the expected values for 'source' and 'target' enums. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare enum values.
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's function with a specific verb ('Translate') and resource ('industry classification code between schemes'). It explicitly lists the supported schemes (NOGA 2008/2025, NACE 2.0/2.1, ISIC 4), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tariff_lookup or classify_text.
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 context (translating codes between classification schemes) but does not provide explicit when-to-use versus other tools or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the clear purpose.
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.
finma_search and kyc_check overlap heavily; both search the FINMA registry by name, and kyc_check essentially does what finma_search does with include_warnings=true. The other tools are distinct, but this pair creates real selection ambiguity.
Names mix verb-first (classify_text), noun-first (finma_search, tariff_lookup), and pure nouns (cross_walk, entity_history). All are lowercase with underscores, so it's readable, but the inconsistent verb placement breaks a predictable pattern.
9 tools is well-scoped for a server covering multiple Swiss data domains (classifications, FINMA, tariffs, statistics). Each tool serves a distinct purpose and earns its place without being overwhelming.
The set covers core workflows: text classification, code mapping, entity search/history, tariff lookup/changelog/search, and statistics. Minor gaps like a direct get-entity-by-UID endpoint or more granular statistics exist, but agents can work around them.
