Default company call: one-shot web + firmographics + domain trust by name or domain. Use lion_company_enrich if you only need name/employees/country. Use lion_verified_company_file for KYB source trail. $0.03 Base USDC. [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/company-research]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Company name or domain e.g. stripe.com | |
| domain | No | Optional domain override |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct: enrich provides basic firmographics, research adds web intel, compliance bundle combines sanctions with domain data, wallet screen checks addresses, multi-sanctions covers broader lists. Some overlap exists between research/enrich/verified_file and between sanctions tools, but descriptions explicitly cross-reference when to use each. declare_need serves as a router to reduce ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'lion_' prefix with snake_case. Names are descriptive nouns or noun phrases (company_enrich, compliance_bundle, wallet_screen) rather than a strict verb_noun pattern, but the naming is uniformly structured and predictable. Minor deviation: lion_declare_need uses a verb, but the prefix and formatting remain consistent across the entire set.
With 8 tools, the count falls well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct paid or free purpose in the company/compliance workflow, from lightweight enrichment to full attested dossiers and sanctions screening. No redundancy or missing essential function that would require adding or removing tools.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of company and compliance data needs: free teaser (quick_intel), basic enrichment, detailed research, sanctions screening (single and multi-list), a comprehensive compliance bundle, and a fully attested KYB dossier. The free router (declare_need) also helps agents navigate to the correct paid path, closing the gap of 'which tool do I start with'. No obvious missing operations for a read-only data provider.