Retrieve executive profile information for a company including leadership details, roles, and professional background. Premium API. Cost: $0.25 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes | Company name and job title (e.g. 'Coinbase CEO') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Retrieve', indicating a non-destructive read operation, but the annotations set 'destructiveHint: true', which contradicts the description. This is a significant inconsistency that confuses the agent about the tool's side effects. Additionally, the cost is noted but not reflected in annotations.
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 at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The cost information is extra but relevant for an agent making decisions. Every sentence earns its place, though the description could be slightly more structured.
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 tool has no output schema and limited annotations, the description provides some context on output content ('leadership details, roles, and professional background') but does not explain return format, error handling, or whether results are guaranteed. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the verb 'Retrieve' and specifies the resource as 'executive profile information' including leadership details, roles, and background. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on executive profiles rather than general company info, though does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'interzoid_company_verification'.
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?
Mentions that it is a 'Premium API' with a specific cost ($0.25 USDC via x402), which signals that it should be used judiciously and when cost is acceptable. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor when not to use it.
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.
