get_showcaseCurated IBEX35 + EU entity examples. FREE — does not consume quota. Use to explore data depth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Sample size (default 3, max 5) | |
| category | No | Subset to sample (default: all) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | No | ||
| unlock | No | ||
| checkout | No | ||
| entities | No | ||
| upgrade_url | No | ||
| access_level | No | ||
| gated_fields | No | ||
| upgrade_hint | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'FREE — does not consume quota,' which affects invocation decisions. It doesn't contradict the annotations and no destructive behavior is implied.
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 three short sentences totaling about 15 words: purpose, cost, and usage intent. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema field names or annotation details. This is an exemplary concise tool description.
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 low-complexity tool (2 optional params, no required fields, output schema present), the description covers the key operational facts: curated sample scope, free/quota behavior, and intended use case. Missing elaboration on what 'data depth' means or the exact return shape, but the output schema handles return details.
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%, with inline parameter descriptions for limit (default 3, max 5) and category (enum with default 'all'). The description's mention of 'IBEX35 + EU' loosely maps to the category enum but adds no new syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema already supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with 'Curated IBEX35 + EU entity examples,' naming the resource and the curated/sample nature, so the agent knows it returns sample entities. The title 'Get Showcase' and the FREE/explore wording position it as an exploratory, read-only endpoint. It is distinct from siblings like entity_lookup or run_risk_audit, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from.
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 instruction 'Use to explore data depth' gives a clear intended-use context, telling the agent this is for data exploration rather than lookup or auditing. It doesn't provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but given the sibling list this is clearly the demo/example tool. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
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 target distinct purposes: entity lookup vs. full dossier vs. VAT verification vs. professional lookup are clearly different. However, get_entia_home and get_entity_home_projection are very similar (both about Entia Home) and could cause confusion, though descriptions clarify the difference. Overall, overlaps are minimal and well-described.
The naming mixes conventions: 'get_' prefix is used for 8 tools, but others like 'entity_lookup', 'professional_lookup', 'zone_profile' use noun phrases without a verb. 'run_risk_audit' and 'verify_vat' are verb-based but follow different patterns. The inconsistency could confuse an agent expecting a uniform verb_noun structure.
With 12 tools, the server covers a broad but well-scoped domain of entity verification and business intelligence. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the intended functionality.
The tool surface covers core entity lookup, search, dossier, VAT, professional verification, and even added value like risk audit and zone profiling. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for updating entity data), but for a read-heavy verification service, the set is comprehensive and leaves few dead ends.