Current UTC offset, DST flag and local time for an IANA zone (e.g. Europe/Berlin) or the zone list for a supported ISO-2 country code. 1 credit, requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the tool requires an API key, costs 1 credit, and returns specific data (UTC offset, DST flag, local time) or a zone list. It does not cover error cases or invalid inputs, but it provides valuable operational context.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary output, then seamlessly mentions the alternative mode and adds essential cost/auth details. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema constraints.
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 one parameter, the description covers the core behavior, both input modes, and the required API key and credit cost. It does not explicitly describe the output format or error handling, but given no output schema exists, the description still provides enough context for a basic understanding.
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 only defines 'zone' with a pattern and length constraints, giving no semantic meaning. The description compensates by explaining that 'zone' can be either an IANA timezone (e.g., Europe/Berlin) or an ISO-2 country code, along with an example. This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and usage.
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 returns current UTC offset, DST flag, and local time for an IANA zone, or a zone list for a country code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fx_rate or get_holidays, and the tool name aligns with this functionality.
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 the tool by specifying the input types (IANA zone or ISO-2 country code) and the cost (1 credit) and auth requirement (API key). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.
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 targets a distinct resource: FX rates, holidays, timezones, VAT rates, and IBAN validation. There is no functional overlap, so an agent can easily select the right tool for a task.
All tool names follow a consistent <verb>_<noun> snake_case pattern: get_fx_rate, get_holidays, get_timezone, get_vat_rate, validate_iban. The verb varies but the style is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is an appropriate scope for a utility server focused on EU-related data. Each tool provides a clear, non-redundant capability, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The set covers the key EU administrative and financial data points (FX, holidays, timezone, VAT, IBAN). A minor gap is the lack of a country metadata tool, but the existing tools cover core workflows without dead ends.