ISO country ER

Agent readability score

Strengths

• Some tools have clear, descriptive names (e.g., 'validate-json')
• Descriptions occasionally explain usage scenarios (e.g., 'Check whether a URL can be opened')

Weaknesses

• Tool names are often ambiguous or overly technical (e.g., 'agent-tool-index')
• All tools share identical parameter lists with no clear purpose or constraints
• 23 tools have overlapping functionality (e.g., 'browser-url-ok' vs 'playwright-url-ok')
• No error handling or constraint documentation in any tool descriptions

• cc-er — Name doesn't clarify ISO record purpose
• utc-time — Description lacks usage context
• timezone — Shares identical parameters with 29 other tools
• validate-json — No error handling documentation
• normalize-url — Overlaps with 'web-fetch' and 'fetch-status'
• inspect-robots — Redundant parameters across all tools
• domain-shape — No clear distinction from 'github-repo-shape'
• citation — Shares parameters with 28 other tools
• compatibility — Vague description with no usage examples
• status-catalog — No error handling or constraints mentioned

Verdict

The toolset suffers from severe design flaws: identical parameters across all 30 tools, significant functional overlap, and lack of error handling documentation. The ambiguous naming and repetitive parameters make it impossible for an agent to reliably select the correct tool for any given task.

9/13/2026, 2:04:04 AM

Event narrative