Identify recent buying signals for a target company including funding events, leadership changes, expansion announcements, hiring trends, and other intent signals useful for sales targeting. Premium API. Cost: $0.25 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes | Target company name to surface buying signals for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states 'identify' implying read-only behavior, but annotations set destructiveHint=true, indicating possible side effects. This contradiction misleads the agent about the tool's side effects. Additionally, no mention of credit consumption beyond cost.
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: first explains functionality with examples, second notes cost. No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence 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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and cost, but lacks details about return format or pagination. For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this 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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Target company name'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter fully.
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 identifies recent buying signals for a target company, listing specific examples like funding events and hiring trends. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on matching, parsing, or profile lookups.
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 mentions it's a premium API with cost, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like interzoid_business_info or interzoid_competitor_analysis. Usage is implied but lacks exclusions or comparisons.
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 target distinct data operations (matching, standardization, enrichment) with clear descriptions. Minor overlaps exist, e.g., address_match_advanced vs global_address_match, but descriptions differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent 'interzoid_descriptive_function' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict purpose from the name.
58 tools is high for a single server, exceeding the typical 3-15 range. While each serves a specific data enrichment function, the quantity may overwhelm agents without clear categorization.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including address, company, person, and financial data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no reverse IP lookup, limited social media coverage), but core data needs are well-addressed.
