Determine the likely gender associated with an individual name. Supports international names. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | First name to determine gender for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds cost information ($0.01 via x402) and international support. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or response format. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which seems mismatched but not directly contradicted.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes additional useful information (international support and cost) without unnecessary details.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks details about the return format (e.g., male/female/unknown). It is adequate but not fully 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?
The input schema covers the parameter with a description, and the description adds that the tool supports international names, enhancing the semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'first name' label.
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 specific verb 'determine' and resource 'gender' associated with a name. It clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like interzoid_name_origin by focusing on gender.
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 support for international names but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state 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.
