Full attested KYB dossier by domain ($0.95). Use after lion_company_research/enrich when you need per-field source trail. Not a first call. $0.95 Base USDC. [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/verified-company-file-json]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Company website domain e.g. stripe.com (not a full URL) |
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.
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.