Firmographics only (name, employees, country, industry, website). Not a web-research pack — use lion_company_research for that. $0.04 Base USDC. [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/company-enrich]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | ||
| fields | No | Comma-separated fields | |
| format | No | apollo_org for drop-in shape | |
| identifier | Yes | Company name or domain |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses cost ($0.04 USDC), payment method (x402 paid), and endpoint (GET /api/x402/company-enrich). It also scopes output to firmographics. However, it does not describe error handling, latency, rate limits, or what happens on invalid input. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not rich. A 3 is appropriate as it meets the minimum without being exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core scope ('Firmographics only'), then immediately differentiates from the sibling, and finishes with practical cost and endpoint details. Every sentence earns its place.
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 enrichment tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: scope, alternative, cost, and payment method. It doesn't mention format defaults or error behavior, but given the simplicity and absence of output schema, these are less critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, with 'fields' and 'format' documented. The description adds context that available firmographics include name, employees, country, industry, and website, which hints at what fields might be accepted but doesn't map directly to parameters. 'domain' and 'identifier' still lack descriptions, though 'identifier' has a schema description. The description adds modest value beyond schema, so a baseline of 3 is warranted.
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 exactly what the tool does: firmographics (name, employees, country, industry, website). It explicitly contrasts with lion_company_research, making distinction clear. Specific verb 'enrich' is implied, and the scope is 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 provides a clear exclusion: 'Not a web-research pack — use lion_company_research for that.' This tells the agent when NOT to use it and points to the alternative. It implies the use case (firmographics) but doesn't elaborate on conditions like required fields or limitations. Still, the exclusion is valuable and explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly defined purpose with explicit usage notes, e.g., lion_company_enrich is firmographics-only while lion_company_research adds web data, and lion_verified_company_file provides a full source trail. Even overlapping tools like wallet_screen and multi_sanctions_bundle are scoped by input type and desired output, leaving no ambiguity.
All tools follow a strict 'lion_' prefix with snake_case descriptive names (e.g., lion_company_enrich, lion_wallet_screen). The verb-noun pattern is consistent across the set, making it predictable and easy to navigate.
With exactly 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its stated purpose of x402 data and RPC. The count is neither bloated nor thin, and each tool addresses a distinct use case from quick intel to full compliance bundles.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of company and Sanctions screening: free tier (quick_intel, declare_need), enrichment, research, sanctions (wallet_screen, multi_sanctions_bundle), and verified KYB (verified_company_file). No obvious gaps like missing update/delete actions exist, and all core workflows end in a paid path without dead ends.