denue_establishmentGet full details for a single establishment by DENUE ID (the "Id" field from search results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Establishment Id (numeric string, e.g., "9988845") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which fully cover behavioral traits. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond clarifying the input source, so it meets the baseline for annotation-supported tools.
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?
Single sentence that immediately states purpose and input, with no unnecessary words. Perfectly front-loaded for an AI agent.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the input source and action, providing complete context for a single-entity lookup 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter described in the schema. The description adds context that the ID comes from search results, providing helpful usage guidance beyond the raw schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('Get'), resource ('full details for a single establishment'), and method ('by DENUE ID'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying the input as the 'Id' field from search results.
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?
Description instructs to use the 'Id' field from search results, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate (when you have a specific ID). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the sibling names imply search tools for finding IDs and this tool for details.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct with detailed descriptions guiding usage, though some overlap exists between similar query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which could cause confusion for agents not reading carefully.
All tool names use snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent verb-noun pattern. Prefixes vary widely (actions like ask, compare, generate vs. domains like denue, polymarket), making the naming scheme inconsistent.
With 35 tools, the count is high for a server named 'Denue', which suggests a narrower focus. While the breadth may be justified by the platform's capabilities, the number feels slightly heavy and could be streamlined.
The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations, but it is read-only with no write capabilities for external data. Memory and subscription tools add some action, but overall, it is fairly complete for its stated purpose.