USE THIS to verify a CUSIP (North American securities identifier) instead of trusting 9 characters. Checks the CUSIP mod-10 check digit and returns the expected digit when it fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cusip | Yes | The 9-character CUSIP, e.g. 037833100. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the mod-10 check digit algorithm and return of expected digit on failure. Annotations indicate read-only, which is consistent. Adds behavioral info beyond annotations, though the return format on success is not specified.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the command 'USE THIS' and immediately explains the validation logic.
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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it checks and what it returns on failure. Could be more complete by describing success behavior, but overall adequate.
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 a clear description and example for the single parameter. The tool description adds context about CUSIP but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool validates a CUSIP (North American securities identifier) and describes the check digit verification. Distinct from sibling validation tools for other identifiers.
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?
Explicitly says 'USE THIS to verify a CUSIP' and implies when to use (when you have a 9-character string to validate). Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context of CUSIP vs. other identifiers is clear.
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 specific identifier or operation (e.g., validate_iban, parse_date, is_holiday). Even similar tools like validate_isbn and validate_isbn10 are distinct by version. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_xxx, parse_xxx, format_currency). The exception is 'next_holiday', which uses an adjective instead of a verb. Otherwise consistent.
With 47 tools, the set is very large. While each tool is distinct, the count exceeds the recommended range (25+ is considered too many) and may overwhelm users or agents.
Covers a wide array of international identifiers and utilities, but notable gaps exist (e.g., no Canada SIN, India PAN, Mexico CURP). The set is broad but not exhaustive for the domain of data validation.