Person name match score: compares two individual names and returns a 0-100 similarity score, handling name order, nicknames, initials, and abbreviations (for example 'Robert Smith' vs 'Bob Smith Jr.'). Use it to confirm contact matches and resolve customer identities. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fullname1 | Yes | First full name | |
| fullname2 | Yes | Second full name to compare |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / fullname1 / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "James Johnston"
+]Input schema / properties / fullname2 / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "Jim Johnson"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it specifies a 0-100 similarity output, matching behavior for name order/nicknames/initials/abbreviations, and a $0.01 USDC x402 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the core matching capability appears first, followed by usage context and cost. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter read-only matching tool with no output schema. The description states the return range (0-100), the matching capabilities, the intended use case, and the cost, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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%, so both fullname1 and fullname2 are already documented with descriptions and examples. The description reinforces the comparison semantics with an example ('Robert Smith' vs 'Bob Smith Jr.') but does not add parameter-specific constraints or formatting details 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 gives a specific verb and resource: it compares two individual names and returns a 0-100 similarity score. It clearly distinguishes itself from address or company matching by specifying 'two individual names,' but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool interzoid_fullname_match.
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 provides a clear usage context: confirming contact matches and resolving customer identities. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as interzoid_fullname_match or interzoid_address_and_fullname_match.
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.