Public holidays for a country and year, with local names and a past/upcoming flag. (Free. This server also sells a paid API — call paid_catalogue for the routes and prices; x402 over USDC on Base, no signup.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Calendar year (defaults to current) | |
| country | Yes | ISO 2-letter country code, e.g. JP |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output contents (local names, past/upcoming flag) and notes that the service is free, which is useful. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read-only lookup these may not be critical.
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 short sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides a straightforward note about free vs paid API. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool with two self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return values. Adding a note about the free tier and paid catalogue is extra context that helps decision-making. It is nearly complete, though it could mention response format or data source specifics for a perfect score.
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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters: country is an ISO 2-letter code and year defaults to the current year. The description adds little beyond restating 'for a country and year', so it does not significantly improve on the schema's 100% coverage.
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 what the tool returns: public holidays for a country and year, including local names and a past/upcoming flag. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like air_quality or geocode.
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 (when you need public holidays) and mentions a paid alternative (paid_catalogue), but it does not explicitly compare to other data tools or state when not to use it. The free/paid note gives some context but not full 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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose (air quality, country indicators, earthquakes, elevation, geocode, holidays, URL reading, web search, catalogue). The only overlap is that geocode already returns elevation, making the separate elevation tool redundant and potentially confusing.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern, mixing noun-based names (earthquakes, elevation) and verb_noun names (read_url, web_search). The style is uniform across the set, so naming is predictable and readable.
Nine tools is a reasonable count for a general-purpose data/web utility server. However, the set feels like a random assortment of free APIs rather than a coherent scoped collection, which slightly undermines the sense of appropriateness.
The server name 'tokenguard' implies a focus on token safety and blockchain intelligence, but the free tools cover unrelated domains (air quality, geocoding, holidays, web). The actual token-safety features are only mentioned in the paid_catalogue and are not exposed as MCP tools, leaving a significant gap between the server's apparent purpose and its actual capabilities.