Structured, fully-cited dossier for one entity: cross-source identity, ownership/UBO chain, risk signals, filed financials, provenance. Pass the token from claim_dossier to unlock the full paid depth you purchased for this entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| token | No | Optional dossier access token from claim_dossier — unlocks the full paid depth (UBO chain, assets, financial history) for this entity. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already establish safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the dossier is 'fully-cited' and the token unlocks purchased depth. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining why a token is needed and what it unlocks, improving transparency without contradicting any annotation. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences deliver a clear definition and a critical usage note. Every phrase ('cross-source identity', 'fully-cited', 'unlock the full paid depth') carries weight. No fluff, direct, and well-structured for 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?
The description covers the tool's core function, its contents, and the token workflow, which is sufficient for a read-only retrieval tool. It does not describe return format or error cases, but given the lack of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description provides adequate context. A minor gap is not mentioning how this differs from similar 'get_*' tools, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 coverage is 50% (only token has a description). The description enriches the token parameter by explaining its origin ('from claim_dossier') and effect ('unlock the full paid depth'), which is helpful. However, the primary required parameter 'id' receives no explanation in the description, leaving the purpose of that parameter undocumented. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but does not fully cover it.
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 clearly states the tool returns a 'Structured, fully-cited dossier for one entity' and enumerates contents (identity, ownership/UBO, risk signals, financials, provenance). While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_entity or get_financials, the term 'dossier' and the listed contents make the purpose specific and recognizable.
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 implies a workflow: pass the token from claim_dossier to unlock full paid depth. This hints at when to use the tool (after claiming) but does not explicitly address when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is useful but not comprehensive, so a 3 (implied usage) fits.
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 distinct purposes (search, lookup, get details, graph traversal, coverage maps, payment). Some overlap exists between lookup_company and lookup_by_identifier (both resolve identifiers, though one is UK-specific), and between get_entity vs get_company_details, but descriptions clarify distinctions. find_similar and semantic_search both find similar entities but different mechanisms.
Uses a mix of verb_noun and noun_phrases: buy_dossier, claim_dossier, check_offshore_exposure, find_similar, get_pricing, get_pulse, graph_neighbourhood, list_asset_coverage, lookup_by_identifier, search_entities, trace_ownership_path. While most use underscores and verbs like get/lookup/search/list, there are inconsistencies like 'graph_neighbourhood' (noun start) vs 'trace_ownership_path' (verb start). Overall readable but not perfectly consistent.
23 tools is at the high end but justifiable for a comprehensive intelligence server covering search, lookup, graph, coverage, payments, and entity details. 'buy_dossier' is considered one of the tools and adds bulk but not excessive. It is appropriate for the scope.
Covers a wide range: search (search_entities, search_companies, semantic_search), identifier lookup (lookup_by_identifier, lookup_company), entity details (get_entity, get_company_details, get_financials), graph (graph_neighbourhood, graph_path, trace_ownership_path), coverage maps (list_jurisdictions, list_asset_coverage), sanctions (get_sanctions, check_offshore_exposure), plus payment flow (get_pricing, buy_dossier, claim_dossier, get_payment_link). Missing perhaps a 'get_relationships' separate tool but get_entity includes direct relationships. Also no explicit 'list_entities' but search covers it. Minor gaps like no bulk operations besides resolve.
