Get comprehensive profile for an IP address including geolocation, ISP, organization, CIDR block, and reputation assessment. Premium API. Cost: $0.25 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address to profile |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims a read-only action ('Get'), while annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting potential write or destructive behavior. This contradiction undermines trust, and the description does not clarify the discrepancy. The cost info adds value but fails to address behavioral traits disclosed by 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key details, followed by cost context. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and included data, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or authentication. The cost mention is helpful but not fully complete for a premium API.
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?
There is only one parameter with a schema description ('IPv4 or IPv6 address to profile'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter information, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 states the tool's verb (Get), resource (comprehensive profile for an IP address), and includes specific details like geolocation, ISP, organization, CIDR block, and reputation assessment. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which focus on IP profiling.
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 it's a 'Premium API' with a cost, implying usage consideration, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance for tool selection.
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.
