Returns the timeline of changes for a FINMA-supervised entity (registration, authorisation type changes, status mutations, address moves, warning-list flag transitions). Keyed by Swiss UID (CHE-xxx.xxx.xxx). Irreplicable by scraping — finma.ch only publishes the current state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | Swiss UID (e.g. CHE-103.137.179) |
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 adds the valuable context that the data is irreplicable by scraping and that finma.ch only publishes the current state, which signals the uniqueness and historical depth. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, error behaviors, or auth requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.
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-loaded with the core purpose and supported by concrete examples. The note about irreplicability adds unique value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place—there is no wasted verbiage.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose, keying, and data uniqueness. It stops short of detailing the exact return structure or edge cases like missing entities, which would have made it fully complete, but it is sufficiently self-contained for an agent to select and 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% for the single 'uid' parameter, including its pattern and example. The description's mention of 'Keyed by Swiss UID' reinforces but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter effectively.
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 returns a timeline of changes for a FINMA-supervised entity, listing concrete examples (registration, authorisation type changes, status mutations, address moves, warning-list flag transitions). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like finma_search or statent_lookup, which likely focus on current state.
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 when to use the tool (when historical changes for a Swiss UID are needed) and notes that it is irreplicable by scraping, suggesting it is the unique source for such data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance at an implied level rather than explicit exclusions.
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.
