find_competitorsGiven a company domain or name, return the other companies IndustryLens tracks in the same market. Returns { covered: false } for companies not publicly tracked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Company name (e.g. 'Apollo'). Used when no domain is given. | |
| limit | No | Max competitors (default 10, max 50). | |
| domain | No | Company domain or homepage URL (e.g. 'apollo.io'). Preferred. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the return value including the '{ covered: false }' case, but lacks disclosure on authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. Annotations would have helped, but given their absence, this is basic but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with no waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the special return case is succinctly noted. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main behavior and the edge case of untracked companies. It could detail behavior when both name and domain are provided, but overall it is fairly 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, essentially restating that parameters are used to identify the company. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters.
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 verb 'return' and the resource 'other companies IndustryLens tracks in the same market'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_comparison' by focusing on competitors in the same market, and explains the special case of untracked companies.
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 implies usage by saying 'given a company domain or name', but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over the 12 sibling tools (e.g., 'get_market_landscape' vs 'find_competitors'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.
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 aspect of competitive intelligence—competitor discovery, detailed comparisons, market landscapes, pricing changes, strategic moves, and reports—with no functional overlap. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_competitors, get_comparison, list_markets), with verbs like 'find', 'get', 'list', and 'subscribe' appropriately chosen. No mixing of conventions.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a competitive intelligence domain. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is neither too small nor overwhelming for an agent to navigate.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: discovering competitors, obtaining profiles, comparing them, viewing market landscapes, tracking pricing and strategic moves, and accessing reports. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.