Compare 2-5 companies side by side on Cyborg Score, industry, key insights, and competitive positioning. Useful for portfolio decisions, M&A short-listing, or competitive analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companies | Yes | List of 2-5 company names or slugs to compare. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only comparison but does not explicitly state whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has side effects. It does add context on comparison dimensions, which is useful.
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 sentences: one states the function, the second lists use cases. No redundancy or irrelevant details.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains what it does and when to use it, covering the essential context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema already describes the 'companies' parameter (names or slugs, 2-5 items). The description adds meaning by specifying what will be compared (Cyborg Score, industry, etc.), helping users understand the expected input's relevance 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 clearly states the tool compares 2-5 companies on specific attributes (Cyborg Score, industry, key insights, competitive positioning). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_company_report (single company) and search_companies (search).
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 provides clear use cases ('portfolio decisions, M&A short-listing, or competitive analysis'), offering context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use 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 serves a distinct purpose: comparing companies, retrieving full reports, fetching a quick score, and searching. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (compare_companies, get_company_report, get_cyborg_score, search_companies), making them predictable and easy to understand.
4 tools is well-scoped for a company research server. Each tool earns its place without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers search, detailed report retrieval, quick score lookup, and comparison. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list or get recent reports for a company, but core workflows are supported.
