Legal entity reference data from the GLEIF LEI golden copy (updated daily, CC0). Direct lookup: ?lei=529900FCMZ4LKXFD0R69. Search: ?name=airbus&country=FR&limit=5. Each result: lei, legal_name, entity_status, registration_status (ISSUED/LAPSED), jurisdiction, legal_form_id, hq_city/country, next_renewal_date. 24h cache. Price: $0.005 USDC per call (x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| country | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data source (GLEIF), update frequency (daily), license (CC0), cache duration (24h), and pricing ($0.005 USDC). Does not mention authentication or rate limits, but overall good transparency.
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?
Description is concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence defines resource, then examples, then result fields, then cache and price. 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?
Covers behavior (cache, price) and result format (fields listed). With no output schema, this is helpful. However, it lacks explicit guidance that at least one of lei or name should be provided, slightly reducing completeness.
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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds significant meaning: explains that lei and name are alternative lookup methods, provides example values, and clarifies the role of limit and country in search. Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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 it provides legal entity reference data from GLEIF LEI golden copy, with examples of direct lookup and search. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on LEI data, but does not explicitly contrast with other tools.
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?
Provides explicit examples of usage: direct lookup by LEI and search by name/country with limit. Gives pricing and cache info. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
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 serves a distinct verification or lookup purpose (e.g., company lookup, sanctions screening, address geocoding, IBAN validation) with no overlap. Even tools targeting the same source (e.g., check_eori vs. validate_vat_eu) have clearly different inputs and outputs.
Almost all tools follow a verb_noun pattern (verify, validate, lookup, check, find, screen) with clear nouns. The only exception is 'catalog' (a noun-only name), but it's a minor deviation that doesn't cause confusion.
19 tools is appropriate for a data verification service covering company data, sanctions, VAT, addresses, emails, IBANs, and financials. Each tool addresses a specific need without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of EU company verification: existence, status, financials, ownership, VAT, sanctions, EORI, invoices, tenders, and address validation. No obvious gaps for its stated domain.