LION - keyless x402 data + RPC for agents

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid via x402 and specifies a price and network (Base). However, it does not state whether it is read-only, destructive, or any authorization requirements. The payment information is useful but incomplete for full behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Multi-source on-chain + market intelligence') and includes a useful pricing detail. It is efficient, though it could expand slightly to improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 lacks details on return values, expected input for the flexible parameters, and any constraints or prerequisites. Given the tool's flexibility (4 optional params) and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to reliably construct queries.

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 has 4 parameters with only 25% coverage (mode has a description). The description adds no explanation for any parameter, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the agent without meaning for the parameters q, domain, and method.

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 it is a 'Multi-source on-chain + market intelligence' tool, covering specific domains like dex, risk, yields, etc. It identifies the tool as a query endpoint (adaptive query) and differentiates from siblings by being multi-source and paid. However, the verb 'query' is somewhat vague and doesn't fully specify what the tool does beyond being a general data access point.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lion_web_search or lion_quick_intel. The description only mentions it is paid, but does not state prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes pricing ($0.03) and payment method (x402), and states it returns a 'research pack' with web, firmographics, domain. However, it doesn't describe potential side effects, authentication beyond payment, or exact output shape.

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?

Description is a single paragraph with essential points (purpose, use cases, pricing, example). Some clutter from URL and technical payment detail, but overall concise and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at return structure. It mentions components (web + firmographics + domain) and an upsell, but lacks specifics on data fields or format. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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 covers 'q' with description 'Company or domain' (50% coverage). The description reinforces that 'q' takes a company or domain via example '?q=coinbase.com', but adds no new detail. The 'domain' parameter is left undocumented, missing opportunity to clarify its role.

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 it provides a quick company dossier combining web, firmographics, and domain data. It lists use cases (company intel, vendor research, KYB taster) but does not differentiate from sibling tools like lion_company_research or lion_company_enrich.

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?

It mentions specific use cases ('company intel pack, vendor research, KYB taster') but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. Lacks explicit exclusion or sibling references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses pricing and the authentication method (keyless + attestation), but does not discuss rate limits, error handling, or behavior on invalid input.

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 dense and front-loaded with purpose, output, pricing, and alternate context. It could be more structured but contains essential information without wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the output fields. It also provides pricing and authentication context. The tool is relatively simple (4 params), so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds that the identifier can be a domain or name, and lists output fields, but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning 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 clearly states the tool performs company enrichment by domain or name and lists the firmographic fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting 'keyless + attestation' and providing a specific alternative use case.

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 mentions it is an alternative to CompanyEnrich/org-enrich when keyless + attestation is desired, and includes pricing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'Ed25519-attested' and 'x402' but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is more about the payment model than behavior.

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 verbose with marketing information (pricing, competition, technical attestations) that are not essential for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool. It could be condensed to focus on functionality.

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?

Lacks information about return values or output format (no output schema). Does not provide guidance on how the result should be used or compared to sibling tools. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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% (both parameters described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the basic purpose without parameter-specific details.

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 mentions 'Company research' and 'web + firmographics + domain trust', indicating it gathers company information. However, it is mixed with pricing and technical details, and does not clearly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'lion_company_dossier' or 'lion_org_enrich'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The mention of undercutting rivals is about cost, not functional context. Missing when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.05 on Base), payment method (x402), and keyless architecture. It mentions the outcome categories (PASS/WARN/BLOCK) but does not detail rate limits or side effects (unlikely for a read-only compliance check). Solid disclosure overall.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the key features and pricing. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and avoids verbosity.

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 purpose and key checks, but lacks details on the full output structure (beyond PASS/WARN/BLOCK) and does not explain the return format of the compliance receipt. Given no output schema, more completeness would aid agent understanding.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'for screening context'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 performs comprehensive counterparty compliance (OFAC SDN, multi-list sanctions, domain trust, token risk, firmographics) with PASS/WARN/BLOCK output. Explicitly distinguishes from 'one-shot OFAC tools' and mentions a unique compliance receipt feature.

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 positions the tool for AML KYC due diligence and contrasts with simpler OFAC tools, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like lion_entity_sanctions_screen or lion_multi_sanctions_bundle. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'keyless' (suggesting no API key) and a paid endpoint (cost $0.001 on Base), but fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or its effects on data. No mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 that front-loads key features (multi-chain, keyless RPC, enrichment) and includes payment details in a concise manner. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter roles, or how this composite tool differs from other enrichment or query tools. The agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.

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 input schema has two undefined parameters (chain, identifier) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain them. The agent receives no help understanding what values these parameters expect or how they affect the tool's operation.

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 uses vague terms like 'enrichment' and 'composite bundle' without specifying exactly what the tool returns or does. It mentions 'multi-chain keyless RPC' and 'Ed25519-attested enrichment' but does not clearly state the action or resource, making it confusing for an AI agent to understand the primary purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like lion_company_enrich, lion_keyless_base_rpc, or lion_compliance_bundle. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses data sources, attestation method (Ed25519), and payment model, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no data found.

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?

Very concise with one sentence covering purpose, data sources, and pricing. Could be more front-loaded but no unnecessary words.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, but lacks detail on expected output structure or any edge cases, making it minimally complete.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters; description adds 'by barcode or name' which aligns with schema but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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?

Clearly states it provides CPG product data and shop prices using barcode or name, naming specific sources (Open Food Facts, Open Prices). The verb 'get' is implied, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which cover enrichment, research, etc.

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?

Implies usage for product lookup by barcode or name, and mentions paid access, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lion_quick_intel or lion_enrich_v1, nor provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it's free, returns a recommended paid path with sample, and includes a default workflow with prices. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects or authentication needs.

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 short (two sentences) but includes specific pricing details that may be extraneous for tool selection. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return format. It vaguely says 'Returns recommended paid path + sample' without specifying structure. Given the many siblings, more differentiation is needed.

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 100% for the single 'need' parameter, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's 'What you need in plain language'. It reinforces the free-text nature but doesn't provide formatting or examples.

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's purpose: tell LION what you need and get a recommended paid path plus sample. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a free meta-tool that recommends other tools, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'FREE' tag implies it's for exploration, but there is no when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses payment details (x402 paid) and Ed25519 attestation, but does not mention rate limits, whether it's read-only, or what happens on payment failure. Some behavioral traits are missing.

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 front-loaded with purpose but includes additional pricing, upsell, and endpoint details that could be streamlined. It is adequate but not highly concise.

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 no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns. It mentions combining data sources but gives no indication of result format or structure, leaving a significant gap for agent understanding.

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% for the single parameter 'q', providing a clear example. The description adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs company research combining web, scrape, firmographics, and domain trust, distinguishing it as a comprehensive aggregated tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like lion_company_research or lion_company_enrich.

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 mentions usage before/after people enrichment and provides a query parameter hint, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose lion_verified_company_file instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that DNS live lookups and HTTPS trust scoring are performed, and mentions a cost of $0.005, but does not explain payment mechanism ('keyless Base USDC') or any rate limits. Without annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 relatively concise, capturing the core functionality and a usage hint in two sentences plus a brief price note. However, the structure could be improved by separating the technical details from the pricing/authentication information. It earns its place but is slightly cluttered.

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, the description provides the essential use case and an example. However, it lacks details on expected output format, possible errors, and the meaning of 'keyless Base USDC'. Considering the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'domain', so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example value ('stripe.com') but no additional constraints or formatting beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate significantly for the schema's existing clarity.

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 enriches domains with live DNS records (MX, SPF, DMARC, A) and HTTPS trust score. It provides a specific verb-resource pair ('Domain enrich') and distinguishes itself from siblings like lion_domain_intel by listing specific DNS record types and mentioning the trust score. The example with stripe.com further clarifies the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lion_domain_intel. The description includes a usage example but does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It describes the core functionality but fails to clarify authentication needs, rate limits, or potential costs. The phrase 'Keyless $0.005' and '[x402 paid...]' is ambiguous, potentially misleading about payment requirements.

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 brief and packs relevant details (DNS types, HTTPS probe, pricing). The x402 endpoint info might be extraneous, but overall it is efficient without being too short.

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 no output schema, the description should convey the return format, but it does not. It also fails to differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'lion_domain_enrich', leaving uncertainty about the tool's exact role.

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?

Only one parameter 'domain' exists with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, simply stating it is the domain for trust signals. No format or constraints are specified.

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 it provides live domain trust signals including DNS records and HTTPS probes, which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lion_domain_enrich', though the focus on 'trust signals' offers some distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pricing and a paid API endpoint, but does not specify prerequisites, use cases, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a paid cost ($0.005) and an API endpoint, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects (if any) occur. It also does not describe the returned data format or network behavior.

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 with useful metadata (cost, endpoint), but it lacks structure. It could benefit from breaking out the purpose, usage, and output. It is concise but not optimally front-loaded for agent comprehension.

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?

Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the 'bundle' contains. The agent is left guessing the output format or the nature of the enrichment. Given the large sibling set, this incomplete description makes correct selection difficult.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds high-level context ('enrichment + tx context') but does not elaborate on how the parameters interact or format expectations. This is adequate given the schema's clarity.

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 this tool does 'one-call enrichment + tx context,' implying it combines company enrichment with transaction data. However, it does not use a clear verb to specify the action, and it is not sufficiently distinguished from sibling tools like lion_company_enrich or lion_enrich_v1 beyond the mention of transaction context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and the vague description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool is keyless (no auth), paid ($0.04), and uses Wikidata+SEC as data sources. It implies a read-only operation via GET request but does not explicitly state side effects, data freshness, or any potential risks. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but is adequate for basic transparency.

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 concise, packing key information (purpose, price, aliases, format, data sources) into a single sentence. It uses symbols for efficiency, though the inclusion of pricing and upsell may slightly distract from the core purpose. Front-loads the main action.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and 67% schema description coverage, the description covers the enrichable fields and format but omits details on what the identifier expects (e.g., domain name or company name) and what the output structure looks like. It is functional but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description adds value beyond the schema: it lists the default fields (name, employees, country, industry, website) and specifies that format=apollo_org. It also mentions aliases implicitly related to the format parameter. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by clarifying the fields' content.

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 it is a company/org enrichment tool with specific fields (name, employees, country, industry, website) and gives aliases. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like lion_company_enrich or lion_org_enrich, which also do enrichment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The only context is pricing and an upsell, which does not help with usage decisions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses return values (PASS/BLOCK), fail-safe behavior, pricing ($0.01), security (Ed25519-attested), and endpoint details. However, it does not explain what 'fail-safe' means (e.g., returns PASS or BLOCK when lists are unavailable) or error behavior.

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 concise (two sentences plus a bracketed technical note) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids fluff, though the bracketed endpoint info could be considered inline rather than separate. Minor improvement possible with clearer structure.

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 no output schema and a simple screening tool, the description covers main purpose, pricing, and security but leaves ambiguity: return format beyond PASS/BLOCK (e.g., JSON structure), meaning of 'fail-safe', and parameter usage. Additional details would improve completeness.

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 only 33% (only 'name' has a description). The description mentions 'company or entity name' but does not clarify the differences between the three parameters ('name', 'entity', 'company') or their valid formats. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 screens company/entity names against multi-list sanctions (OFAC/EU/UN) and returns PASS/BLOCK. The specific verb 'screen' and resource 'entity name' distinguish it from sibling 'lion_sanctions_screen' which may target individuals or single lists.

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 provides context (fail-safe, pricing, keyless) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lion_sanctions_screen'. No 'when not to use' guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer based on the 'entity' keyword.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses keyless nature, read-only operation (reads), and pricing, but lacks details on rate limits, error behavior, or supported methods beyond the schema.

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, very concise. However, it includes somewhat noisy pricing syntax (e.g., '?chain=ethereum') that could be streamlined.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., JSON-RPC response). For a simple RPC tool, this is a notable omission.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides for chain, method, and params.

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 performs keyless multi-chain JSON-RPC reads on Base and Ethereum, with pricing information. This distinguishes it from siblings which are unrelated (e.g., company research, scraping).

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 usage for keyless RPC reads but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it queries the public GLEIF Golden Copy API, returns fields like LEI and jurisdiction, is keyless, and uses Ed25519 attestation. It also mentions pricing. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of a lookup implies it.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by technical and pricing details. While it contains some redundancy (e.g., keywords list), it remains efficient and well-structured without unnecessary prose.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's inputs, data source, returned fields, authentication method, and cost. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it omits potential edge cases like rate limits or error handling.

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 100% and the input schema already describes each parameter with examples (LEI format, domain usage). The description reiterates the search methods but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 performs GLEIF LEI lookups by LEI code, legal name, or domain. It specifies the resource (Legal Entity Identifier) and the action (lookup/search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like company enrichment or sanctions screening.

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 provides context for when to use the tool through keyword matches ('LEI, GLEIF, legal entity identifier, LEI lookup, company LEI'), implying it's appropriate for LEI retrieval. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a paid endpoint (x402 paid, $0.02 on Base) and indicates the HTTP method (GET) and path. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or behavior when both address and lat/lon are provided.

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 concise, with one sentence plus bracketed technical details. It front-loads the main purpose ('Location + solar PV potential'). The inclusion of endpoint and price adds value without excessive verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or the nature of solar PV potential data. It also doesn't address default behavior when no parameters are provided (all optional). For a paid tool, this lack of completeness could lead to confusion.

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 0%, but the description clarifies the meaning of parameters: address is a string, lat/lon are numbers, and they are alternatives (either address OR lat+lon). This adds significant context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify if all three can be used together or what happens if none are provided.

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 it provides location and solar PV potential for sites/properties. The verb 'enrich' is implied, and the resource (location+solar) is specific. It is distinct from sibling tools like lion_domain_enrich or lion_company_enrich, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 gives context for when to use (for sites/properties) and hints at input methods (?address= or ?lat=&lon=), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 implies a read-only lookup by mentioning 'screen' and 'compliance receipt' but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it requires no write permissions. The description adds value by noting the output types and pricing, but safety details are missing.

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 packs functional purpose, marketing claims, and API details into a single block. While the core information is present, the structure is cluttered and could be more concise. Front-loading the main purpose helps, but the extra text on pricing and alternative names could be separated.

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 explains the core screening functions and output types (PASS/WARN/BLOCK), which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, the format of the 'portable proof' receipt is not described, and given the tool's complexity, more detail on the output structure would improve completeness.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. It contextualizes them within the bundle but offers no extra syntax or format details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a 'multi-list sanctions compliance bundle' that screens OFAC SDN wallet addresses, entity names, and domains, providing PASS/WARN/BLOCK results. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from simpler siblings like lion_sanctions_screen, though the inclusion of marketing terms and pricing slightly dilutes clarity.

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 mentions 'Matches: multi-list sanctions, compliance receipt, OFAC EU UN screen' and 'AML KYC counterparty due diligence', which implies comprehensive screening. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., lion_sanctions_screen or lion_entity_sanctions_screen) or provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses cost and keyless nature, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or what side effects (e.g., API call) occur. The mention of a paid endpoint is useful but incomplete.

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 short but uses cryptic shorthand (e.g., 'drop-in', 'Apollo-shaped', '[x402 paid...]'), which reduces clarity. It could be restructured to clearly state purpose, parameters, and behavior in plain language.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and parameter details. It mentions cost and keyless but fails to describe what the tool returns or how it behaves, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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 0% for 3 parameters. The description only mentions that 'identifier' can be a domain or name, and hints at 'format=apollo_org'. It does not explain 'fields' or 'format' further, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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 is for enriching organization data (firmographics) using a domain or name identifier, and mentions optional Apollo-like format. However, it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like lion_company_enrich or lion_domain_enrich, relying on jargon like 'drop-in' and 'Apollo-shaped'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints at keyless usage and cost, but does not state when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description reveals that the search is keyless, uses OSM data, and costs $0.01 per call on Base. However, it lacks details about returned data format, error handling, or rate limits.

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 containing the core purpose, data source, cost, and endpoint. It is concise, though could be slightly better structured.

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 absence of output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, query syntax, or behavior beyond basic search.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what 'q', 'lat', and 'lon' mean. It only says 'search', leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 'Point of interest / business search', which is a specific action and resource. Among siblings, there is no other tool explicitly for POI/business search, so it stands out.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or compare to similar sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, and the description only says 'teaser'—it does not disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a summary?), how it behaves, or any side effects.

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?

Very short and to the point, but lacks structure (e.g., separate sections). Every word earns its place, but more detail could be added without losing conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single vague parameter, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, limitations, or usage steps.

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 single parameter 'entity' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description hints it's a company or domain but provides no format, examples, or clarity.

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 it's a free teaser for a company/domain, with upgrade options. It distinguishes itself from paid siblings by being free and quick.

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?

Implies usage for a quick free look, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives beyond upgrades.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions pricing, Ed25519 attestation, and the API endpoint, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects. While the query nature implies safety, the lack of explicit read-only confirmation is a gap.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the core question. It efficiently includes pricing, sibling comparison, attestation, and API endpoint. Minor clutter from pricing details but overall well-structured.

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 simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, differentiation, technical details (attestation, pricing), and matching lists. It could specify the return format or what 'fuller fields' entail, but is adequate for selection.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a question format and mentions 'address' but does not provide additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already states ('EVM address to OFAC SDN / sanctions screen').

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 screens an EVM address against the OFAC SDN list. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'wallet-screen' by noting fuller fields and multi-list metadata, and also mentions related matches (OFAC SDN, AML address screen), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 compares the tool to the cheaper lion_wallet_screen, indicating when to use this version (when fuller fields and multi-list metadata are needed). It lists matching datasets, but does not explicitly address when to use other siblings like lion_entity_sanctions_screen, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost, keyless attestation, and output fields, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, supported page types, or ethical use.

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?

Very concise, front-loads purpose, and includes essential cost info. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, description provides minimal but adequate info. Missing details on output structure, error modes, and usage constraints.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description shows the query format but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's 'Absolute http(s) URL'.

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 performs a web scrape returning title, markdown, and word_count, distinguishing it from search or enrichment tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like lion_web_search or lion_domain_enrich.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions cost and payment method but not context or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It notes keyless access and pricing but omits return format, rate limits, authentication details beyond 'keyless', and what 'attested' means. Missing critical behavioral context.

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?

Description is a single sentence with pricing in brackets. It's concise but not structured for easy parsing; key details like pricing and access mode are mixed with purpose. Could be improved with separate sections.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Missing return format, error handling, and parameter semantics.

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 has two optional parameters (cik, ticker) with 0% description coverage in schema. Description does not mention parameters at all, leaving agents without guidance on their usage, format, or that they are optional.

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 it provides SEC EDGAR financials for public companies. It mentions keyless and attested access, distinguishing it from other financial tools in the sibling list, though not explicitly compared.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lion_company_dossier or other financial tools. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool is paid and keyless but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. Behavioral traits are insufficiently described.

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 short but includes extraneous details like the endpoint path and price. While concise, it sacrifices essential information. The structure is not optimized for front-loading key usage details.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool effectively, what it returns, or any edge cases. The agent cannot use this description alone to make informed decisions.

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 input schema has three undocumented string parameters (q, topic, entity) with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent with no understanding of how to use them.

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 mentions specific sources (HN and Reddit) and concept (attention/trend), giving some indication of what the tool does. However, it does not clearly state the output (e.g., a score, list, or summary) and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like lion_web_search or lion_quick_intel.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes pricing and 'keyless' but does not explain in which scenarios this tool is appropriate or preferable over other lion tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ($0.03 Base USDC) and suggests a read-only operation (risk indicators). However, it does not specify whether it is destructive, rate limits, or return format beyond the cost.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and chains. The second sentence adds cost info efficiently. Slightly penalized for the first sentence being a noun phrase rather than a verb-driven statement.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the returned risk indicators look like or what metrics are included. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params), more detail on output structure is needed for completeness.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds marginal value by explicitly listing the chains ('Base/Eth/Solana') which matches the chain param description, but does not provide additional meaning 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 'Pre-trade token risk indicators' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as providing token risk assessment, and lists supported chains (Base/Eth/Solana). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on token risk, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many other data tools, but the description does not mention scenarios or exclusions for this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, and the description only discloses the endpoint type (GET) and pricing. It does not reveal if the tool is idempotent, error behavior, or any state modification, leaving the AI with minimal behavioral cues beyond the parameter.

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 very concise, a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes payment details in a bracket. It is not verbose but the structure is clear. Minor deduction for the bracket being slightly distracting.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the tool lacks output schema and annotations. The description does not explain what the decoded calldata looks like, any restrictions, or provide an example of usage. An AI agent would have incomplete context to correctly interpret results.

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 single parameter 'tx' has a clear schema description. The tool description repeats the parameter format but adds no additional meaning or constraints. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; description adds marginal value.

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 it provides a Base transaction receipt with decoded calldata. The verb 'tx receipt + decoded' and resource specification are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like lion_enrichment_tx_bundle, but the unique focus on decoding calldata is implied.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is x402 paid with a cost, but does not explain context for use, such as prerequisites or scenarios where a raw receipt or another tool would be preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions keyless access and pricing but does not state whether validation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, rate limits, or response structure. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Includes pricing which may be extra, but overall efficient. Could be more concise by separating pricing, but still appropriate length.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter relationships, expected output format, or error cases. Lacks sufficient detail for reliable invocation.

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 33% (only 'vat' has a description). The tool description adds an example for 'vat' but provides no meaning for 'number' or 'country'. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

Clearly states 'EU VAT / tax ID validation' using VIES, with keyless access. The verb 'validate' and resource 'VAT/tax ID' are specific. Among sibling tools, none serve exactly this purpose, so it distinguishes well.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or when not to use it. Only states it's keyless and paid, but lacks contextual direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Ed25519-attested, degrades per-section when sources missing', which informs the agent about the cryptographic attestation and graceful degradation. It also specifies the payment mechanism and price, though it omits rate limits or error handling.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the need statement and packing key details (contents, attestation, price) into a tight format. However, it includes slightly disjointed fragments (e.g., 'Base USDC x402' and the trailing x402 path) that reduce flow.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return value shape. It lists output components (firmographics, SEC, domain trust, per-field source trail) and mentions attestation and degradation. This is sufficiently complete for a paid API tool, though it lacks coverage of error states or exact response format.

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 100% (only one parameter 'domain' with a clear description). The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it reiterates 'by domain' without clarifying format or validation rules. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides 'verified company data' and lists specific contents (firmographics, SEC, domain trust, per-field source trail). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'Matches: verified company file, KYB, corporate registry intel', which contrasts with nearby tools like lion_company_enrich or lion_company_dossier.

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 usage for KYC/KYB due diligence and mentions 'Matches:' to hint at alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'pre-pay gate' and 'x402 paid' but does not explain how payment works, rate limits, what happens if screening fails, or how the Ed25519 attestation operates. Missing critical behavioral details.

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 verbose with pricing and marketing claims (e.g., 'Beats $0.005–$0.05 wallet-screen clones'). This detracts from conciseness. A more focused description would be more effective.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description mentions the output classification (PASS/WARN/BLOCK) and the pre-pay requirement. However, it lacks detail on return format, error handling, or how to interpret the results. Adequate but not thorough.

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 100% for the single parameter 'address'. The description repeats the schema description without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 performs OFAC SDN wallet screening with output PASS/WARN/BLOCK. However, it's cluttered with pricing and competitor comparisons, which slightly detracts from clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like lion_sanctions_screen or lion_entity_sanctions_screen. The description only mentions it's 'cheapest' and 'beats clones', but does not specify use cases or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states 'keyless off-chain' and a paid endpoint, but does not explain what the tool does internally, what data it returns, or side effects. The mention of price and endpoint is helpful but insufficient.

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, which is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to separate key information. It could be more readable with bullet points or sections.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and the large number of sibling tools, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values, parameter combinations, or how it differs from similar tools.

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 has two parameters (domain, identifier) with no descriptions. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used. With 0% schema coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 mentions 'company enrichment vectors' which implies the tool provides enrichment data for companies, but lacks a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'enrich'. It does not distinguish from sibling enrichment tools like 'lion_company_enrich' or 'lion_domain_enrich', making the purpose vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses keyless attestation, Ed25519-signed results, and paid pricing (x402). However, it omits behaviors like error handling, result format, rate limits, or auth flow beyond 'keyless'.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, parameter, attestation, and pricing. No redundancy, but the price detail could be less prominent for an AI agent.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return structure. It mentions 'Ed25519-attested result set' but does not specify content (e.g., URLs, snippets). Pricing and payment flow are mentioned but not explained for agent-handling.

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 100% with a single parameter 'q' described as 'Search query'. The description repeats this by including '?q=' but adds no extra nuance (e.g., query syntax, length limits, encoding). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a 'web search' for 'agent grounding', specifying keyless attestation and paid model. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'lion_deep_research' which implies deeper research, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., lion_poi_business_search, lion_quick_intel). The phrase 'for agent grounding' is too vague to indicate use cases or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'keyless' (no API key) and 'GET' (implies read-only), but does not clarify if it is destructive, idempotent, or has rate limits. The pricing and endpoint info is present but incomplete for behavioral understanding.

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 very short but poorly structured. It mixes licensing info (CC0), pricing, and a partial endpoint path without a clear separation. Important functional information is omitted in favor of metadata.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, how parameters affect results, or any example usage. The agent has insufficient information to decide when or how to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of the three parameters (q, qid, entity). Without any additional context, the agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 mentions 'Wikidata firmographics' but does not use a verb to specify the action (e.g., 'retrieve', 'search'). It reads more like a data source label than a tool purpose. Without further context, the agent cannot clearly understand what the tool does compared to siblings like lion_company_enrich.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or what distinguishes it from other firmographic or enrichment tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.