Chameleon / reincarnation entity-resolution: new authorities that share a phone or physical address with a recently-DEACTIVATED carrier (a likely reincarnation of an outfit that lost authority). Filing-agent / registration-service clusters are down-weighted. Returns a 0-100 score + match basis. A review signal, not proof of fraud.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| minScore | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description reveals key behavioral traits: it returns a 0-100 score and match basis, down-weights filing agents, and is intended as a review signal. It does not document auth requirements or side effects but covers the core behavior well.
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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core concept, specifies the output, and adds context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 description explains the return value and high-level logic, but lacks parameter details entirely. Given no output schema, the description should have elaborated on parameters to be considered fully complete.
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 has three parameters (limit, state, minScore) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides zero explanation of their meaning, usage, or defaults. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate.
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 the tool's purpose: detecting likely reincarnations of deactivated carriers using phone/address matching. It specifies the output (0-100 score + match basis) and distinguishes it from generic lookup tools by naming the specific entity-resolution task.
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 notes it's a review signal, not proof of fraud, and mentions that filing-agent clusters are down-weighted. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_carriers or safety_screen, leaving the agent to infer relative context.
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 distinct purposes, but carrier_risk_lookup and safety_screen are nearly identical risk screening tools, and new_authority_feed and new_carriers are explicitly aliases, creating redundancy that could confuse an agent.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most use snake_case but pattern varies (noun_verb, verb_noun, noun_noun), and new_authority_feed mixes camelCase. No consistent verb_noun pattern.
9 tools is well-scoped for a freight intelligence server, covering lookup, risk, search, chameleon detection, and switch signals without being overwhelming.
The tool surface covers core workflows: carrier lookup, risk screening, chameleon checks, new carrier leads, search, and factor switch detection. Minor gap: no direct tool for individual inspection details, but those are embedded in risk screens.