FREE router. Tell LION what you need in plain language. Returns the one paid path to call next (wallet screen $0.001, company research $0.03, enrich $0.04, compliance $0.05, VCF $0.95). Call this first when unsure which tool to use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | What you need in plain language |
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.
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.