Deterministic IBAN check before a SEPA/international transfer: format regex, per-country length (public SWIFT registry, ~85 countries) and ISO 7064 mod-97 checksum. Query: ?iban=FR1420041010050500013M02606 (spaces/dashes tolerated). Returns valid, country, bban, and a precise failure reason. Pure offline computation, 1y cache. Price: $0.001 USDC per call (x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully compensates: discloses deterministic computation, offline, 1-year cache, pricing ($0.001 USDC per x402 call), and return fields (valid, country, bban, failure reason). No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, input format, and key behaviors. No redundant or extraneous information.
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?
Coverage is good given complexity: inputs explained, processing described, outputs listed, and cost mentioned. Could improve with explicit output schema but the listed fields are sufficient.
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 one parameter with no description (0% coverage). Description adds value by providing an example and noting that spaces/dashes are tolerated, which aids in correct parameter formatting.
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?
Description clearly states it performs a deterministic IBAN check with specific validation methods (format regex, country length, mod-97 checksum). Distinguishes well from sibling validation tools like validate_vat_eu or validate_email.
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 clear use context: 'before a SEPA/international transfer'. Includes input tolerances (spaces/dashes). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons to alternatives, but sufficient for basic 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.
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.