Determine the likely cultural or geographic origin of an individual name. Useful for demographic analysis and internationalization. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name to determine origin for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC via x402), which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the cost information adds specific value.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first defines purpose, the second adds use cases and cost. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.
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?
The description explains purpose and cost but lacks information about the return format or error behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap for a simple lookup tool.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('Full name to determine origin for'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond using the word 'individual', which is already implied by 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?
Description explicitly states the action: 'Determine the likely cultural or geographic origin of an individual name.' The verb-resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which cover addresses, companies, and other data domains.
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?
Description provides clear usage context ('demographic analysis and internationalization'), but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.
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.
