Bulk-find business emails for a LIST of contacts (name + company domain each). Submits the list, waits for completion, and returns the found email per contact. Up to 1000 contacts. Charges 10 Fox Credits per contact. Large lists that don't finish quickly return a jobId to poll with get_job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait | No | Wait for results in this call (default true) | |
| contacts | Yes | Contacts to find emails for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses submission, wait, return of emails or jobId, and billing. Sufficiently transparent for a read-heavy but mutating (credit-burning) operation.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Efficiently conveys all key behaviors.
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?
Describes return value (email or jobId), limits, and billing. No output schema, so description adequately covers expected response. Lacks error behavior explanation but still complete enough.
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%, so description adds minimal value. It mentions 'name + company domain each' clarifying the pattern, but no extra detail beyond schema. Baseline 3 justified.
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?
Clear purpose: bulk-finds business emails for a list of contacts, each with name and company domain. Distinguishes from sibling 'find_email' by specifying list processing and bulk nature.
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?
Describes usage context: up to 1000 contacts, charges 10 Fox Credits per contact, and async polling with jobId for large lists. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but provides sufficient guidance.
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 has a unique, clearly defined purpose: find_email for single lookup, find_emails for bulk, verify_email for single verification, verify_emails for bulk, plus separate tools for checking credits and polling async jobs. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_email, verify_emails, get_credits, get_job). The convention is uniform and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped, covering both single and batch operations for finding and verifying emails, plus needed auxiliary functions (credits, job polling). This is optimal for the domain.
The tool set provides a complete workflow: finding emails (single/bulk), verifying emails (single/bulk), checking credits, and handling async jobs. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
