get_first_name_statsFirst name frequency statistics for a given place and year
Returns the top-X list of first names in the specified place and year. When a person has multiple forenames, only the first is counted. Currently only Amsterdam is available as a place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventyear | Yes | ||
| eventplace | Yes | ||
| number_show | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral rule: 'When a person has multiple forenames, only the first is counted.' It also discloses the current place limitation. These details add value beyond what annotations already provide.
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, followed by two essential clarifications. Every sentence adds value with no repetitive fluff.
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?
The tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers what it returns, the counting rule, and the current place restriction. This is largely sufficient, though it could mention the year range or an example output for extra clarity, but those are not critical.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries more weight. It maps 'place' to the available value (Amsterdam), 'year' to eventyear, and 'top-X list' to number_show. This provides some meaning beyond the bare parameter names, but it does not thoroughly explain each parameter's semantics or constraints, leaving a gap that the schema alone does not fill.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Returns the top-X list of first names in the specified place and year.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on first names and mentioning that only the first forename is counted. This is specific and unambiguous.
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 for obtaining first-name statistics for a given place and year, and notes a restriction ('Currently only Amsterdam is available as a place'). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_family_name_stats, nor does it state any 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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, e.g., browse/search/show/view transcriptions are well differentiated. The stats tools (get_event_type_stats vs get_source_type_stats vs get_record_stats) are similar in structure but each targets a unique dimension, and names make the distinction clear.
All tools use snake_case and are descriptive, but they mix verb prefixes: browse, get, match, search, show, view. This is not fully consistent, though each verb aligns with the action. Some names like get_births_years_ago are less patterned than others.
With 22 tools, the set is on the heavier side but justifiably covers diverse features: genealogical records, transcriptions, statistics, weather, census, and archives. It borders on too many, but the scope is broad enough to support them.
The domain of genealogical archives is well covered with search, show, browse, stats, and matching tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit user comment tools beyond stats, no direct archive detail endpoint separate from list), but core workflows are supported.