Retrieve private company deal intelligence including funding rounds, valuations, investors, M&A activity, and ownership changes. Premium API. Cost: $0.25 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lookup | Yes | Private company name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There is a clear contradiction: the description states 'Retrieve' (read operation) while annotations set destructiveHint=true, implying possible side effects. This inconsistency undermines transparency. Additionally, no further behavioral details (e.g., authentication, rate limits) are provided beyond the 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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and content. The second sentence adds cost information, which is relevant but not strictly necessary. No redundant information.
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 absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return structure (e.g., JSON fields). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., need for exact company name) or limitations. The cost mention is useful but does not compensate for missing operational context.
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 has one parameter ('lookup') described as 'Private company name'. The description adds context about the retrieved data types but does not elaborate on parameter constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, minimum length). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3.
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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'private company deal intelligence', listing specific data types (funding rounds, valuations, investors, M&A activity, ownership changes). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that retrieve other types of data.
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 no guidance on when or when not to use this tool vs. alternatives. With many sibling data retrieval tools, explicit usage context is missing.
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.
