Dutch address dossier — $0.025 per call (x402, USDC on Base). One call, four registers for a Dutch address: the address itself, its BAG building (bouwjaar, floor area, use function), its AHN height above NAP, and CBS key figures for its gemeente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postcode | Yes | Dutch postcode, e.g. 1011AC. | |
| huisnummer | Yes | House number. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the cost ($0.025 per call via x402/USDC on Base) and the exact data registers returned, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or a read-only status, but the lack of any side effects and the simple query nature mitigate this.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the tool name and cost, then lists the key content. Every clause is informative, with no filler or repetition. It is concise yet structured enough to convey the value proposition clearly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description sufficiently sets expectations for the return data by enumerating the four registers and giving examples (bouwjaar, floor area, use function, NAP height, CBS key figures). It also includes cost and settlement context. It does not describe exact output formatting, but that is not essential for a dossier tool when no output schema exists.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both 'postcode' and 'huisnummer.' The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, instead focusing on the output registers. This meets the baseline for schema coverage, but the description adds no extra parameter semantics.
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 identifies the tool as a 'Dutch address dossier' and specifies that one call returns four registers: address, BAG building, AHN height, and CBS key figures. This distinguishes it from siblings like nl_address, nl_building, nl_elevation, and nl_demographics by emphasizing the combined, multi-register response.
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 usage when a comprehensive Dutch address dossier is needed, especially highlighting efficiency with 'One call, four registers.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus calling individual sibling tools (e.g., nl_address, nl_building) separately, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.