pricing_infoFree — list every paid tool in the 'company-intel' bundle with its price, payTo address and network. Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint:true, destructiveHint:false, and openWorldHint:false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by indicating that the tool is free (overriding a potential assumption that pricing tools incur costs), and by specifying it lists pricing for paid tools—implying it discloses what remains proprietary. However, it does not describe what happens if no paid tools exist in the bundle or whether the response is a list or single object; these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 a single sentence of 20 words, front-loading the most important information ('Free') and then immediately stating the action and output. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition. It is highly efficient while being complete.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description covers the essential facts: what data it returns (prices, payTo, network), for which bundle (company-intel), and how it relates to the user's wallet readiness. A minor gap is that it does not explain whether the tool lists all paid tools once or can be filtered, but with zero params, the expectation is low. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the pricing is specifically for the 'company-intel' bundle, which is not stated in the structured input. It also mentions the details returned: price, payTo address, and network. This effectively compensates for the lack of parameters.
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 starts with 'Free' to quickly communicate the cost, then specifies the action 'list every paid tool in the 'company-intel' bundle with its price, payTo address and network.' This clearly describes what the tool does (lists pricing info) and what resource it operates on (the company-intel bundle). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool dedicated to pricing; other tools like company-lookup or funding-alert serve different purposes.
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 advises the agent to 'Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, implying that the tool is useful for discovery before payment actions. It also contrasts with sibling tools that require a wallet or other setup, effectively guiding the agent's decision-making.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between company-lookup and company-registry-enricher, and between individual signal tools and composite rollups. The descriptive names help differentiate, but the boundary between one-off screenings and alert/rollup tools requires careful reading.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of hyphenated lowercase nouns (e.g., company-lookup, funding-alert, sanctions-screening). The one exception, pricing_info, uses an underscore, creating a minor deviation from the otherwise uniform naming style.
With 20 tools, the server is on the higher end of typical scope but justified for a comprehensive company intelligence bundle. Each tool covers a distinct or complementary aspect of company research, so the count feels purposeful rather than bloated.
The toolset covers company lookup, registry, hiring, funding, sanctions, litigation, patents, contacts, new company detection, and email verification—a broad and well-rounded surface for due diligence and sales intelligence. Composite tools like intent-signal-aggregator and lead-list-qualifier tie these together effectively, leaving no major dead ends.