LION Research Bundle — one-call enrichment + tx context [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/enrichment-tx-bundle-json price $0.005 on Base]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx | No | Optional Base tx hash | |
| identifier | Yes | Company or org name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / entityRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Topic/brand/company/domain for enrichment (optional if tx only).",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / identifierAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Company or org name",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / tx / descriptionPrevious value: -"Base tx hash 0x... for receipt + calldata decode (optional if entity only)."New value: +"Optional Base tx hash"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "identifier"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable operational facts: this is an x402 paid endpoint and the price ($0.005 on Base). That is genuinely useful. It does not say what happens if tx is omitted, whether payment/auth is required to execute, or what is returned.
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?
A single sentence with the bundle name front-loaded and pricing metadata bracketed at the end. Efficient, though the redundant 'LION Research Bundle' prefix and the compressed pricing/logistics crammed into brackets slightly hurt readability.
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 composite bundle with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the enrichment covers and how the two data streams combine. Instead it leaves the return content entirely undefined, so an agent cannot predict the value of the call.
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 both params (tx, identifier) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that tx supplies 'context' alongside the enrichment, which is marginally beyond the schema but not a substantive semantic addition.
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 'one-call enrichment + tx context' bundle, and the identifier param indicates company/org enrichment. However, 'enrichment' is a generic term that doesn't specify what kind of data is returned (firmographics, sanctions, financials?), so it only weakly differentiates from siblings like lion_company_enrich or lion_tx_receipt_decoded.
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 when-to-use guidance, no explanation of how the enrichment and tx components relate, and no routing to or away from the many sibling enrich/bundle tools. The agent gets no signal on when this composite is preferable to calling the individual tools.
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.