Creates a user account with the given email, sends a verification email, and returns an API token. Unverified users are limited to 30 queries/month; verified users can make 300/month for free. Drop us an email to tell us how you found the service and if you want more queries (see website footer)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | User email address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that an account is created, a verification email is sent, and an API token is returned. It also provides rate limit context (30 vs 300 queries/month), which is useful behavioral information. Minor gaps exist (e.g., duplicate email behavior), but overall it is quite transparent.
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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core action. The final sentence about emailing for more queries is slightly tangential but still relevant to quota context. It is concise without being overly terse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow: account creation, verification email, token return, and quota limits. It lacks failure-mode details but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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% for the single email parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'User email address'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the action: 'Creates a user account with the given email, sends a verification email, and returns an API token.' This is a specific verb+resource+outcome and clearly distinguishes from sibling list 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 implies this tool is for initial registration and obtaining a token, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It does mention quota implications for unverified vs verified users, but that's more about post-registration behavior.
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 distinct purpose: location_groups_list provides reference data for allowed location filters, register_and_get_key_create handles account creation and API keys, and the two stories endpoints are differentiated by their primary filter (industry/location vs. organization). The overlap between stories_industry_location_list and stories_organization_list is minimal and easily resolved by their names and descriptions.
Three tools follow a 'noun_list' pattern (location_groups_list, stories_industry_location_list, stories_organization_list), but the fourth, register_and_get_key_create, breaks the pattern with a verbose verb sequence and a 'create' suffix. This inconsistency, while understandable, makes the set slightly less predictable.
Four tools is a reasonable size for this server's scope, covering location taxonomy, user registration, and two story retrieval flavors. It stays within the well-scoped range, though it's on the smaller side; one or two more tools for generic story search or detail retrieval would feel even more complete but are not strictly necessary.
The server exposes two simplified story endpoints but references a 'main stories endpoint' and an 'industry-clusters' endpoint that are not provided, leaving a notable gap for agents wanting a broader search or industry taxonomy. It lacks a direct story-by-ID lookup or generic listing, so coverage is partial and may force agents to work around missing operations.