Call this for the public directory card of one provider by handle or registration number: bio, source URLs, X-verification status, entity type, community rating and structured profile when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | No | Provider handle, e.g. 'openhands' | |
| regNum | No | Registration number, e.g. 2432 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the output fields and notes that the structured profile is included 'when available,' which adds transparency about conditional data. However, it does not disclose what happens if both handle and regNum are omitted, which takes precedence, or error behavior when a provider is not found.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Call this for the public directory card') and then efficiently enumerates the included data. No redundant words or information; every segment adds value.
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 getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content and its conditionality. It lacks explicit error-handling details and interaction rules for the two parameters, but given the tool's simplicity, it covers the essential context sufficiently.
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 schema already describes both parameters (handle and regNum), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explicitly stating 'by handle or registration number,' clarifying that the two parameters are alternatives rather than complementary, which is not apparent from the schema alone.
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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a public directory card for one provider, listing the included fields (bio, source URLs, X-verification status, etc.). It specifies the resource (provider) and the action (get by handle or registration number), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_provider_profile.
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 phrase 'Call this for...' provides a direct usage context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., search_providers for finding providers), leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit rather than explicit.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs could cause confusion: get_provider vs get_provider_profile overlap in scope (one is a card, the other a full profile), and research_capability explicitly bundles find_niche, niche_report, price_benchmark, and search_providers, creating layered redundancy. However, the detailed descriptions clearly differentiate the entry-point tools from the lower-level ones.
The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, search_, suggest_, etc.), but a few tools use bare noun phrases (demand_signals, market_gaps, niche_report, price_benchmark) rather than imperative or get_ prefixes. This is a minor inconsistency that doesn't harm readability.
At 19 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct, justified function within the market-intelligence and provider-directory domain. The count feels appropriate for the breadth of features (search, research, comparison, pricing, indexes, benchmarks, and feedback).
The tool surface is very comprehensive: full CRUD for custom benchmarks, multiple discovery paths (search, research, gaps, demand signals), pricing and index tools, profile/detail tools, comparison and alternatives, plus outcome reporting. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.
