get_companyFull allowed profile for one company (by id or exact name) plus its supplier/customer supply-chain edges. Includes key_products (short list of named products/lines). Fields are deliberately limited to established/trust-checked data (see README field-discipline note).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Company id, snake_case (e.g. 'tsmc', 'asml') or exact company name. |
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 profile includes supplier/customer edges and key_products, and that data is limited to established/trust-checked fields. However, it does not address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling for missing IDs, or whether data is read-only.
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 no redundancy, efficiently conveying the tool's function, scope (single company), and data limitations. Every word adds value.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (profile, edges, key_products) and data limitations. It could mention return format or error handling, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The description adds context by noting that the ID can be a snake_case identifier or exact company name, with examples. This provides marginal additional clarity but does not significantly extend 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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves the full allowed profile for one company by ID or exact name, including supply-chain edges and key products. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies (which likely lists/ searches multiple companies) and get_supply_chain (which may be broader), making the purpose specific and actionable.
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?
Description specifies usage for a single company and notes that fields are limited to established/trust-checked data, providing implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for multiple companies or broader supply chains) or mention prerequisites.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing portfolio exposure, comparing companies, finding chokepoints, getting company details, country exposure, deals, segments, supply chain walk, and company search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., 'get_company', 'search_companies', 'find_chokepoints'). The convention is uniform and predictable.
9 tools is well-scoped for a specialized supply chain analysis server. Each tool serves a distinct query or analysis need without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers core operations: search, detail, comparison, portfolio analysis, chokepoint identification, country exposure, deals, and supply chain graph traversal. Minor gaps like historical trends or alerts exist but do not hinder primary use cases.