validate_isinValidate an ISIN (International Securities Identification Number, ISO 6166 — 12 chars, e.g. "US0378331005"). Checks structure + the mod-10 check digit and returns the ISO country prefix and NSIN. Keyless/offline; does NOT resolve the issuer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isin | Yes | A 12-character ISIN, e.g. "US0378331005". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "isin": "US0378331005"
+ },
+ {
+ "isin": "GB0002374006"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by disclosing that the tool is keyless/offline, works without network or auth, and explicitly states the limitation of not resolving the issuer. It also details the validation logic (structure and mod-10 check digit) and what it returns (ISO country prefix and NSIN), providing rich behavioral 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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main verb ('Validate an ISIN') and immediately provides essential details (format, example, validation method, returns, and limitations). Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, validation logic, return value components, authentication needs, and limitations. It does not specify the exact output structure (e.g., whether it returns a boolean or an object with fields), but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap. Overall, it is quite complete for the tool's complexity.
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 already fully describes the 'isin' parameter as 'A 12-character ISIN, e.g. "US0378331005"' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this with the ISO 6166 reference and example, but adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline of 3.
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: validating an ISIN by checking structure and the mod-10 check digit, and returning the ISO country prefix and NSIN. It specifies the exact resource (ISIN) and action (validate), and distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_cusip by focusing on ISIN and explicitly noting it does not resolve the issuer.
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 (validating ISINs) and notes that it is keyless/offline, suggesting no authentication needed. It also states a key exclusion ('does NOT resolve the issuer'), which implicitly tells the agent not to use this for issuer resolution. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for issuer resolution, so it falls short of the highest score.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping clusters: the three ask_pipeworx variants and multiple polymarket analysis tools can cause selection ambiguity. Descriptions help, yet boundaries between entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and ask_pipeworx require careful reading.
Tool names almost all follow snake_case with verb-noun or verb-phrase structure (ask_pipeworx, validate_isin, list_subscriptions), and family prefixes like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are consistent. Minor deviations include one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget) and adjective-noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes, entity_profile).
With 34 tools, the surface is well above the 25-tool threshold that typically feels heavy, even though the Pipeworx platform is broad in scope. The server named 'Isin' exposes a large toolkit far beyond its apparent identifier-focused purpose, making the count feel excessive.
The broader data-access, research, subscription, and utility workflows are well covered, including discovery, grounded queries, entity profiles, comparisons, and claim validation. Minor gaps include the lack of direct pipeworx:// URI reading and ISIN issuer resolution, but agents can work around these.