FREE router. Tell LION what you need in plain language. Returns the one paid path to call next (wallet screen $0.001, company research $0.03, enrich $0.04, compliance $0.05, VCF $0.95). Call this first when unsure which tool to use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | What you need in plain language |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It clearly states the tool is free and returns a path, but it does not disclose whether it performs any side effects (it obviously only routes), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication. The core behavior is implied but not fully spelled out.
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 with zero fluff. The 'FREE router' label is front-loaded, and the rest conveys purpose, output, and usage. Highly efficient and 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 routing tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it returns a recommendation and lists all possible paid tools with costs. An agent knows exactly what to do and what outcome to expect. Nothing critical is missing.
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 one parameter 'need' is described in the schema. The description adds the fact that it's in plain language, but that's essentially the same as the schema's description. Minimal added 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?
States a specific purpose: a free router that takes a natural-language need and returns the recommended paid tool. It lists the possible destinations and explicitly says to call it first when unsure, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this first when unsure which tool to use.' Also lists the tool targets, so an agent knows what to expect after calling. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it.
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.