Dutch address lookup — $0.005 per call (x402, USDC on Base). Resolve a Dutch postcode + house number to a full address (street, city, gemeente, province, WGS84 + RD coordinates), or reverse-geocode coordinates to the nearest address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Latitude for reverse geocoding. | |
| lon | No | Longitude for reverse geocoding. | |
| postcode | No | Dutch postcode for forward lookup (e.g. 1011AC). | |
| huisnummer | No | House number for forward lookup. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.005 per call, x402, USDC on Base) and the output fields (street, city, gemeente, province, WGS84 + RD coordinates). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid inputs, or confirm read-only behavior explicitly.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the tool name and pricing, and every clause adds essential information. It covers cost, purpose, modes, and output fields without redundancy or filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description lists the key return values, making the tool's result clear. It adequately covers both use cases and parameter combinations. However, it omits details like error conditions or how to handle cases where both forward and reverse inputs are provided, leaving minor ambiguity.
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 descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds value by grouping postcode+huisnummer as the forward lookup pair and lat/lon as the reverse geocoding pair, clarifying how the parameters relate. It also specifies the postcode format example ('1011AC') in the schema, but the description's mode grouping goes beyond individual parameter docs.
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 'Dutch address lookup' and specifies the two modes: forward lookup from postcode+house number and reverse geocoding from coordinates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nl_building and nl_validate by focusing on address resolution and listing specific output fields.
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 explains when to use forward vs reverse geocoding ('Resolve a Dutch postcode + house number... or reverse-geocode coordinates'), but does not mention any alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with other tools.
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 data source or function: address lookup, building info, demographics, elevation, school holidays, vehicle lookup, validation, currency conversion, plus meta-tools for catalog and sample responses. There is no meaningful overlap between any pair of tools.
The Dutch-specific tools all follow a consistent 'nl_<subject>' pattern (nl_address, nl_building, etc.), and all names use snake_case. However, three tools (catalog, global_fx, sample) break the prefix pattern, creating a minor inconsistency but remaining clear and readable.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a Dutch open data API. Each tool covers a distinct data domain, and the count is within the ideal range without feeling excessive or sparse.
The tool surface covers a broad range of Dutch open data lookups, including addresses, buildings, demographics, elevation, holidays, and vehicles, along with validation and a sample mechanism. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no weather or property value data), but the core domain is well represented.