Dataconto: who buys company records and code

Get one buyer program

get_buyer

Read-onlyIdempotent

One program with its current facts: what it takes, who qualifies, payout, fees, exclusivity, payment timing and process, each quoted from the buyer's page with the date read.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_buyer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Program id from list_buyers, e.g. "scale-data-partnerships". A company name or its legal entity name (e.g. "Cronus Technologies" for AfterQuery) also works.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Program id from list_buyers, e.g. \"scale-data-partnerships\". A company name also works."New value: +"Program id from list_buyers, e.g. \"scale-data-partnerships\". A company name or its legal entity name (e.g. \"Cronus Technologies\" for AfterQuery) also works."

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding provenance and freshness context that annotations cannot convey: each fact is 'quoted from the buyer's page with the date read,' signaling sourcing and staleness rather than a normalized canonical answer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first, then the field list. The enumeration is dense but every item maps to a distinct fact an agent would want, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter fully documented in the schema and read-only/idempotent hints in annotations, the only remaining gap was what comes back, and the description covers that by listing the fact categories plus the quoting and read-date framing. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the id parameter already documents both the list_buyers slug format and the company/legal-entity fallback with an example. The description says nothing about the id, so the schema carries the full burden; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('One program with its current facts') and enumerates the payload (terms, eligibility, payout, fees, exclusivity, payment timing/process), so an agent knows exactly what a call returns. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation from get_market_facts or list_buyers is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: this is the detail lookup for a single program, presumably after list_buyers. The description never states when to prefer this over get_market_facts or get_tool_terms, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Dataconto: who buys company records and code tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?