get_ip_market_snapshotReturn one already-computed static cohort snapshot and up to five leading released firms. No dates, raw records, SQL, arbitrary grouping, or free-form question are accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | Yes | Released national or European route. | |
| window | Yes | Released long or recent analytical window. | |
| right_type | Yes | IP right type. | |
| jurisdiction | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 jurisdiction code. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is already computed and static, at most five leading firms are returned, and only released cohort snapshots are provided. This gives the agent a clear model of what will happen when invoked.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and follows with explicit constraints. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.
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 invocation, the description is complete: all required parameters are covered by the schema, the tool is safe and idempotent per annotations, and the description states the output shape. Without an output schema, it would be slightly stronger to describe snapshot fields, but the high-level return is sufficient for selection and calling.
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 the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds global constraints such as 'No dates, raw records, SQL, arbitrary grouping, or free-form question are accepted,' which mildly clarifies the spirit of the parameters but does not substantially elaborate on any individual parameter 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 a specific verb and resource: it returns one precomputed static cohort snapshot and up to five leading released firms. It also draws clear boundaries by listing what is not accepted, which distinguishes it from open-ended data query 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?
The description clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants a ready-made snapshot rather than raw records, arbitrary grouping, SQL, or a free-form question. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, so it is explicit about when not to use it but not about what to use instead.
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 addresses a distinct query type: coverage discovery, representative search, single profile retrieval, and market snapshot. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, and their required inputs make selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, using 'get_' for retrieval and 'find_' for search. The noun components clearly identify the target resource: ip_representatives, ip_market_snapshot, iprate_coverage, and ip_representative_profile.
Four tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a read-only IP analytics server. Each tool earns its place and there are no redundant or filler tools.
For a static-release analytics server, the surface covers the full read-only workflow: determine coverage, search representatives, fetch a detailed profile, and obtain a market snapshot. Missing CRUD operations are not gaps because the server is explicitly bounded to published static cohorts.