get_intelligence_pageA Drone Intelligence market intelligence page by slug: overview, sections, key players, outlook, sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Page slug, e.g. counter-drone-market |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists the content sections, giving some idea of the return structure, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, discuss error handling, authentication, or any side effects. The 'get' verb in the title implies a safe read, but the description itself is minimal.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the resource type and then lists the included sections. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, so the description is relatively complete for a simple retrieve-by-slug operation. However, with many sibling tools, it lacks differentiation guidance and does not explain the broader context of market intelligence pages or when the returned sections would be useful. It is adequate but not enriched.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter with a description and example. The description merely reiterates 'by slug' without adding syntax, format, or additional constraints, so it does not improve on 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?
The description identifies the resource as 'a Drone Intelligence market intelligence page' retrieved 'by slug' and enumerates its contents (overview, sections, key players, outlook, sources). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_profile or get_briefing, though the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a explicit verb phrase.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_briefing or get_company_profile. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and sibling list.
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 resource or operation. Content tools (get_briefing, get_company_profile, get_intelligence_page, compare_companies) are clearly separated by content type, while tracker_* tools each serve a unique data query function. There is no ambiguity between content retrieval and tracker analysis.
Content tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_*, compare_companies, list_catalogue, search_content), but tracker_* tools use a noun-prefix style (tracker_aggregate, tracker_awards, tracker_capital_ledger). This mixed convention is internally consistent within each group but not throughout the server.
12 tools is well-scoped for a server covering both content access and a tracker dataset. Each tool has a clear purpose, and the number aligns with the guideline of 3-15 tools.
The tool surface covers all announced content types (briefing, intelligence page, company profile, comparison) with get/compare operations, plus catalogue listing and cross-type search. The tracker tools provide comprehensive querying and metadata access, with no obvious missing operations.