LION — Verified Company & Compliance Data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It earns credit for revealing the paid model and endpoint ('$0.04 Base USDC. [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/company-enrich]'), which is useful cost context. However, it doesn't disclose failure behavior, permission/auth requirements beyond payment, or output shape — meaningful gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four short clauses with zero filler, purpose front-loaded first, routing second, and cost/endpoint last. Every sentence earns its place, and the pricing line is information an agent needs before committing to a paid call.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the burden falls on the description. It adequately covers selection and cost, but omits invocation specifics (the identifier-vs-domain usage question) and gives no hint of the return contract. Adequate for routing, incomplete for a first-time caller executing the call without further digging.

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 75% (fields and format have descriptions; domain has none), so the schema does most of the work on documented params. But the description adds nothing about parameters and fails to resolve the inherent identifier-vs-domain ambiguity: identifier accepts 'name or domain' per schema, yet domain is a separate field — the description never clarifies when to use which, leaving a real invocation risk for the one required param.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a concrete output scope: 'Firmographics only (name, employees, country, industry, website).' This precisely delimits what the tool returns and names the sibling it is not ('use lion_company_research for that'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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?

Explicitly excludes the web-research alternative ('Not a web-research pack — use lion_company_research for that') and implies the selection condition through 'Firmographics only.' It doesn't fully enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios against the other six siblings, but the primary routing decision is crisply handled.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that this is a 'one-shot' call, returns web/firmographics/domain trust, and costs $0.03 (implying a paid operation). However, it does not disclose whether the call has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits, and the output format is not described. This leaves gaps but is not misleading.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by routing guidance and pricing. The inclusion of pricing is a small but useful addition. The structure is logical and free of fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what data is returned. It provides a high-level summary ('web + firmographics + domain trust') but not the exact fields or response structure. It does include pricing and alternative routing, which are helpful. Given the low parameter complexity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds 'by name or domain' and mentions the domain override, but these are already implicit in the schema. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 opens with 'Default company call' and specifies the resource (company research) and the scope ('one-shot web + firmographics + domain trust'). It clearly differentiates this from siblings by name, so an agent immediately understands it is the standard, all-purpose company lookup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'Use lion_company_enrich if you only need name/employees/country' and 'Use lion_verified_company_file for KYB source trail.' This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection based on the data needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 Base USDC), the access method (x402 paid endpoint), and mentions a 'signed receipt' as a deliverable. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or side effects, but given the tool is a data bundle, this is reasonable. The cost and endpoint disclosure adds significant behavioral context beyond a generic description.

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, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the tool's essence ('Full counterparty pack') and includes all critical information (components, usage guidance, cost, endpoint) without any irrelevant fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is a bundle that combines multiple checks, and the description lists all components, clarifies the use case, and gives cost and access details. It does not describe the response structure or potential error handling, but given there is no output schema and the description already mentions a 'signed receipt' as an output, it covers what agents need to know to decide and invoke it correctly. A minor gap is not spelling out what happens on failure, but this is acceptable for a paid data endpoint.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, except reinforcing the address requirement ('Needs an address') and implicitly connecting the 'domain' parameter to the bundle's 'domain' component. It adds no format or validation details, making it adequate but not enriched.

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 purpose: a 'Full counterparty pack' with specific components (OFAC, entity sanctions, domain, firmographics, signed receipt). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'Use instead of stacking wallet_screen + research,' which names the alternative and the resource bundle being provided.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use instead of stacking wallet_screen + research' indicates a superior alternative to combining other tools. It also states the prerequisite 'Needs an address,' which is a clear condition for use. This leaves no ambiguity about when an agent should invoke this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is FREE, that it returns a path rather than executing the action, and lists the costs of the paid alternatives. It does not mention error handling or fallback behavior, but for a routing tool this is sufficient and transparent about its non-mutating nature.

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 with zero fluff. The 'FREE router' label is front-loaded for immediate identification, and the pricing list is concise yet informative. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure aids quick scanning.

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 dispatch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, the available paid paths, and when to use it. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional 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 schema already describes the sole parameter 'need' as 'What you need in plain language' (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating the plain-language instruction, so it offers marginal value over the schema and meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Tell LION what you need'), a specific resource (the router), and its output (the paid path to call next). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the FREE entry point and explicitly listing the paid alternatives, so an agent knows this is the dispatch tool rather than a direct data action.

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 explicitly tells when to use it: 'Call this first when unsure which tool to use.' It also provides a mapping of needs to the paid tools with costs, which guides the agent's routing decision and effectively contrasts it with the sibling tools that actually perform the work.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is paid ($0.02 USDC) and indicates the output is a signed receipt. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or how the signed receipt is produced. The cost and payment method provide some transparency, but more detail about data handling and limitations would be expected.

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 and front-loaded with the primary use case. It packs essential information (when to use, alternative tool, pricing, payment endpoint) into a few sentences without redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must clarify return value. It mentions a 'signed multi-list receipt' but does not specify which sanctions lists are covered (beyond implying multiple) or the structure of the receipt. It also lacks information on error handling, authentication requirements beyond payment, and any prerequisites. This is a moderate gap given the tool's complexity.

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% since each parameter has a description. The description adds context by stating that the inputs are alternative combinations (address AND/OR entity), which aligns with the schema's optionality. However, it does not significantly deepen understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the 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 states the tool's purpose: obtaining a signed multi-list sanctions receipt given an address and/or entity name/domain. It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes itself from lion_wallet_screen by noting it goes beyond OFAC SDN.

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?

It explicitly provides usage context ('Use when you have an address AND/OR entity name/domain'), names a sibling alternative (lion_wallet_screen), and states the condition for preferring this tool ('when you need more than OFAC SDN'). It also gives pricing and payment details, which are practical usage considerations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It only discloses that the tool is free and returns a teaser (not a full dossier), which is output scope rather than behavioral traits like request handling, potential failures, or response structure. No mention of network calls, authentication, or limitations beyond the 'free' label.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core message is front-loaded ('FREE teaser for a company/domain') and the upgrade info is precise. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't specify what the teaser contains, how the entity should be formatted, or what the response looks like. The upgrade path gives some context but leaves essential operational details missing.

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 single parameter 'entity' has zero schema description and zero coverage. The description mentions 'company/domain' but doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., domain name, company name, URL) or give examples. This is minimal compensation for a completely undocumented 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?

The description clearly states it provides a 'FREE teaser for a company/domain' and explicitly says it does not return a full dossier, distinguishing it from lion_company_research and lion_verified_company_file. The purpose is specific and separates it from siblings, though it doesn't define what a 'teaser' includes.

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?

It directly names the upgrade tools (lion_company_research, $0.03; lion_verified_company_file, $0.95) and implies these are for when full data is needed. This tells the agent when to use this free teaser versus the paid alternatives, though it doesn't mention any exclusions or conditions like rate limits.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.95 Base USDC), the paid endpoint, and that it is not a first call. However, it does not describe the output format (JSON, file), error behaviors, or data freshness. It also implies a read operation via the GET endpoint but does not explicitly state it. These gaps limit its transparency in a context where annotations are absent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes usage guidance and cost in a few short sentences. Minor redundancy exists with the cost mentioned twice ('$0.95' in the first sentence and again as '$0.95 Base USDC'), which slightly detracts but does not undermine readability.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage order, cost, and endpoint. However, it omits what the returned 'dossier' looks like (e.g., JSON structure, fields) and does not address potential failure modes. Given the tool is part of a pipeline (not a first call), the missing output details may mislead the agent about the response shape.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already clearly explains the domain parameter ('Company website domain e.g. stripe.com (not a full URL)'). The description only repeats 'by domain' without adding extra constraints or conversion details, so it adds no value beyond 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?

The description states precisely what the tool does: it returns a 'Full attested KYB dossier by domain', which is a specific resource. It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting it provides a 'per-field source trail' and is meant 'after lion_company_research/enrich', making its role clear relative to the other tools.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: 'Use after lion_company_research/enrich when you need per-field source trail' and when not to: 'Not a first call'. This leaves no ambiguity about the intended chain of tool usage and the decision condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns PASS/WARN/BLOCK and notes a $0.001 Base USDC cost, indicating a paid operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or any side effects beyond cost. This is reasonable for a simple screening tool but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences: usage condition, exclusion with alternatives, and cost/endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical usage information is front-loaded. No fluff or 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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, what it returns (PASS/WARN/BLOCK), cost, and endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings and specifies the address type. There is no missing information an agent would need to correctly invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'address' parameter, which is clearly described as 'EVM 0x…'. The tool description adds context that this is for payments but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 states a specific purpose: screening a 0x wallet address to obtain a PASS/WARN/BLOCK verdict before payments. It explicitly disambiguates from sibling tools by noting it is not for company names, directing to lion_multi_sanctions_bundle or lion_compliance_bundle instead. This clearly identifies the verb (screen/check), resource (wallet address), and expected output.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (when holding a 0x address and needing a compliance decision before paying) and when-not-to-use (for company names) with named alternative tools. Also mentions the cost and the specific API endpoint, which gives practical usage context beyond basic conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.