Dutch school holidays — $0.005 per call (x402, USDC on Base). Current, merged Dutch school-holiday dates, queryable by school year, region or a specific date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD — returns the holiday (if any) covering that date. | |
| year | No | School year, e.g. 2025-2026. Defaults to the current one. | |
| region | No | noord | midden | zuid. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the cost per call ($0.005) and the nature of the data ('Current, merged'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe output format, rate limits, or error behavior.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the resource, cost, and query dimensions. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The inclusion of exact pricing is somewhat tangential but relevant for cost-aware agents.
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?
The tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at return values or behavior. It gives the query options and pricing but does not describe the response format or what 'merged' dates look like. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but incomplete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the context that data is 'current' and mentions the same filters (year, region, date), but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline.
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 that the tool provides Dutch school-holiday dates and lists the query dimensions (school year, region, specific date). It uses the verb 'queryable' to indicate retrieval, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool nl_vacation_region, which may be related.
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 by mentioning queryable fields and 'current' data, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nl_vacation_region. There are no stated exclusions or selection criteria.
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.