Free: get the documented demo response for any paid tool, so you can see the exact response shape before paying. Returns fixed sample data, not a live lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Which tool to sample: nl_vehicle, nl_school_holidays, nl_vacation_region, nl_address, nl_building, nl_dossier, nl_elevation, nl_validate, nl_demographics, global_fx. |
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 that it is free, returns fixed sample data (not live queries), and provides the 'documented demo response,' setting correct expectations about the non-live nature. It does not elaborate on error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent for this simple tool.
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, front-loaded with the key benefit (Free) and purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in return (fixed sample data), making it complete for effective selection and invocation.
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 fully describes the single `tool` parameter with an enum and a description listing all valid values, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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: 'get the documented demo response for any paid tool' to see the exact response shape before paying. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it returns fixed sample data, not a live lookup, positioning it as a preview/sample tool.
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 this tool: 'before paying' to preview the response shape. It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies using this instead of calling paid tools directly for exploration. No exclusions are stated, but the use case is unambiguous.
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.