validate_cuitValidates an Argentine CUIT or CUIL number. Returns parsed components (prefix, body, check digit), person type, and whether the check digit is mathematically correct. Accepts any format: raw digits, hyphened (20-12345678-9), or spaced. This tool runs the REAL check-digit algorithm — not a demo fixture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuit | Yes | CUIT/CUIL in any format (digits, hyphens, or spaces). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns parsed components, accepts multiple formats, and explicitly states it runs the REAL check-digit algorithm rather than a demo fixture—essential for building trust in correctness.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes: purpose, output details, input flexibility plus algorithm authenticity. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 read-only validator with a single parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, accepted input formats, and the crucial detail that it uses the real algorithm. An output schema is not necessary for this level of 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?
The input schema already documents the 'cuit' parameter and its accepted formats (digits, hyphens, spaces). The description reiterates this and adds a concrete example ('20-12345678-9'), but it does not meaningfully expand beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: 'Validates an Argentine CUIT or CUIL number' using a specific verb and resource. It also lists the return components (prefix, body, check digit, person type, validity), making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on sales, payments, and other business functions.
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 this tool (whenever CUIT/CUIL validation is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since none of the sibling tools appear to offer similar validation, the context is clear, though excluding alternatives would be even stronger.
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.
Several tools duplicate the same underlying data in different presentation modes (get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, query_catalog vs open_catalog_selector, connection_status vs open_onboarding), creating ambiguity. Descriptions mention 'widget' vs JSON but an agent could easily pick the wrong one for a given task.
Tool names mix Spanish and English (caja_consultar_saldo vs validate_cuit) and use varying verb prefixes (open_, query_, get_, list_, find_, track_, quote_, validate_); only the open_ prefix is consistent.
22 tools sits at the high end of the borderline range; the server covers multiple domains (catalog, shipping, payments, fiscal) which justifies many tools, but some widgets and query equivalents could be consolidated.
The surface is heavily read-only: there are no create/update/delete tools for customers, suppliers, or products, and the only way to register a sale is through a widget that fires an internal function. There are also no tools to actually create a payment link or charge, leaving transactional workflows incomplete.