list_comparisonsBrowse published competitor-vs-competitor breakdowns. Optionally filter by a competitor name (matches either side). Each item has a slug usable with get_comparison. URLs follow https://industry-lens.com/compare/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50). | |
| competitor | No | Competitor name filter (matches either side, ILIKE). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks details on pagination, sorting, rate limits, or what the list contains beyond slugs and URLs. Only basic behavior (browsing and filtering) is disclosed.
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 sentences, highly efficient. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence provides distinct utility: action, filtering, and result usage. No 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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is moderately complete. It informs about slugs and URLs but does not specify return structure or field details, which an agent might need for processing results.
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 value by clarifying that the competitor filter 'matches either side' and uses ILIKE. It also explains how the slug parameter connects to another tool.
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 'Browse published competitor-vs-competitor breakdowns', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_comparison (single item) and other list tools.
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 explains optional filtering and that each item has a slug for use with get_comparison, implying when to use this tool versus that one. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.
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.