Full details of one company (AIO score, ASR, sector). Pass the bare domain. If the company is not in AYA yet, it is automatically scanned via AYO and indexed — call again in ~30s to read its score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: automatic scanning and indexing of missing companies, expected latency, and need for a second call. It also hints at the return fields, giving agents a clear expectation.
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 convey purpose, input format, and critical behavioral notes. No superfluous information; the description is front-loaded with the tool's function.
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?
Covers purpose, input, and behavioral aspects well. Could mention any additional return fields or error conditions, but given no output schema, the description is adequately complete.
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 description explains that 'domain' should be a bare domain (not full URL), adding meaning beyond the schema which only defines it as a string. This helps agents format the input correctly.
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 retrieves full details of one company, listing specific data points (AIO score, ASR, sector). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'index_company' (which triggers indexing) and 'search_companies' (which searches).
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?
It specifies to pass the bare domain as input and explains behavior when the company is not in AYA: auto-scan and recall after ~30s. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use this tool, sibling names provide context for alternative 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.
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: cashback claiming, offer retrieval, company details, stats, indexing, and searching. No overlaps or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_cashback, get_cashback_offer, search_companies). No deviations.
Six tools is well-scoped for the registry and cashback domain, covering necessary operations without bloat or insufficiency.
Core CRUD-like operations are covered (search, get, add companies; cashback offer/claim). Minor gap: no update/delete for companies, but likely intentional for an open registry.
