Full attested KYB dossier by domain ($0.95). Use after lion_company_research/enrich when you need per-field source trail. Not a first call. $0.95 Base USDC. [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/verified-company-file-json]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Company website domain e.g. stripe.com (not a full URL) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the cost ($0.95), payment method (x402 paid endpoint), and the nature of output (attested dossier with source trail). However, it does not describe the response format, error behavior, or any side effects. It adds useful context but leaves some operational details implicit.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then gives usage guidance, cost, and endpoint. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.
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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers usage context, cost, and the nature of the return (dossier with source trail). It lacks explicit mention of output format (e.g., JSON vs file), but the tool name and 'dossier' imply a file-like result. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and invoke.
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 schema already describes 'domain' as a company website domain. The description reiterates 'by domain' but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Full attested KYB dossier by domain' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like lion_company_research by emphasizing 'attested' and 'per-field source trail'. It clearly explains what the tool returns and its unique value.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use after lion_company_research/enrich when you need per-field source trail' and 'Not a first call.' This tells the agent when to call it, when not to, and names the prerequisite tools. Perfect guidance for selection.
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.