Generate an AI-powered similarity key for individual/person name matching. Handles variations like 'Bob Smith', 'Robert Smith', 'Smith, Robert J.' producing the same key. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fullname | Yes | Full individual name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses cost ($0.01 USDC via x402), a behavioral trait beyond annotations. Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which aligns with the cost implication. No contradiction. The description adds value by clarifying the non-idempotent nature (charging per call).
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 two sentences: first states core purpose, second provides concrete examples and pricing. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundant information.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's function, examples, and cost. It does not explain the key format or usage beyond matching, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke. Slightly incomplete regarding return values but acceptable.
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 description coverage is 100%. The parameter 'fullname' is described as 'Full individual name' in the schema. The description adds overall context (handles variations, produces a key) but does not specify format or constraints beyond the schema's brief description. Baseline 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 a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('similarity key for individual/person name matching'), and includes examples ('Bob Smith', 'Robert Smith', etc.) that clearly distinguish it from siblings like interzoid_fullname_match_score which likely returns a score.
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 states the tool is for handling name variations and generating a matching key, but does not explicitly advise when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., interzoid_fullname_match_score). Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.
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.
