Verify whether a company exists and get a verification score (0-99) with AI-generated reasoning about legitimacy and credibility. Premium API. Cost: $0.25 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes | Company or organization name to verify |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a non-destructive lookup (verify existence), but annotations set destructiveHint=true, which contradicts. No other behavioral traits (rate limits, idempotency) are 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?
The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential cost information. No unnecessary words.
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 output (score 0-99 with AI reasoning) and cost, which is sufficient for a simple tool. However, the contradiction with destructiveHint undermines completeness, and idempotency is not addressed.
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% with the parameter 'lookup' described as 'Company or organization name to verify'. The description adds context about the verification score but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.
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 verifies company existence and provides a verification score with AI reasoning. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on existence verification rather than other business info or matching.
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 is a Premium API with a cost ($0.25 USDC), implying usage when payment is acceptable. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools is provided.
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.
