Retrieve US government contract information for a company including active contracts, agencies, contract values, and award history. Premium API. Cost: $0.25 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes | Company name to retrieve government contract data for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Retrieve' which suggests a read-only operation, but the annotations set 'destructiveHint: true', indicating potential mutation or destruction. This is a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided to resolve the inconsistency.
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: the first conveys the core purpose, the second adds pricing context. It is front-loaded and concise, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from cost.
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 only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations that conflict with the description, the description fails to fully explain the tool's behavior. The destructive hint is unexplained, and the return format is not mentioned. For a paid API, more detail on what the output contains would be beneficial.
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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'lookup' with a description. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 clearly specifies the action: 'Retrieve US government contract information for a company.' It lists example data points (active contracts, agencies, contract values, award history), making the resource and scope explicit. Sibling tools cover different domains, so this tool is well-distinguished.
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 implies usage context (for government contract data) and mentions it's a premium API with cost, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not criteria. The implied usage is sufficient but not thorough.
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.
