lion_quick_intel
FREE teaser for a company/domain. Does not return a full dossier. Upgrade: lion_company_research ($0.03) or lion_verified_company_file ($0.95).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | No |
LION — Verified Company & Compliance Data
by com.lionx402
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters2/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.