compare_countriesCompare the composite score and rank of several countries.
``iso3_list`` is a list of ISO-3166 alpha-3 country codes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso3_list | Yes | List of ISO-3166 alpha-3 country codes to compare side by side, e.g. ['NLD', 'DEU', 'FRA']. Case-insensitive. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it compares composite score and rank, which is mild additional context. It does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling or return format, but the output schema likely covers that.
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 exactly two sentences: the first conveys the core purpose, the second briefly explains the parameter. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler words.
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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate. It states the purpose and parameter without needing to explain return values or safety (handled by schema/annotations). It does not mention alternatives or limitations, but that is not critical for such a straightforward tool.
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 schema description for iso3_list is fully detailed (ISO-3166 alpha-3 codes, example, case-insensitivity), so the description's repetition that it is "a list of ISO-3166 alpha-3 country codes" adds no new information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 function: "Compare the composite score and rank of several countries." This uses a specific verb (compare) and specific scope (composite score and rank, several countries), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like country_detail (single country) and compare_gemeenten (municipalities).
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to compare multiple countries on their composite score and rank. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the wording "several countries" implicitly excludes single-country or municipality comparisons.
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 query: rankings, country details, region details, comparisons, trends, correlations, methodology, and improvement guidance. Despite minor overlaps (e.g., country_fix and improvement_guidance), descriptions clearly differentiate them, so an agent can reliably select the correct tool.
Tool names mix patterns: some start with verbs (compare_countries, get_cracks_index), others with nouns (area_statistics, country_detail, methodology). While readable and clear, the lack of a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb paradigm reduces predictability for an agent.
With 13 tools covering the full spectrum of index queries—rankings, details, comparisons, trends, correlations, methodology, and improvement guidance—the count is well-scoped for the domain. No tool feels superfluous, and the set is neither too sparse nor too bloated.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD-like coverage for the Cracks Index: full ranking, per-area detail and breakdown, comparisons, trends, top movers, indicator correlations, ranking by indicator, methodology, and improvement guidance. No obvious gaps exist for common agent workflows.