find_dataGet a full Data Finder plan for up to three sources: fit, cost at your monthly volume, resale terms with recorded clause, URL and read date, and build-it-yourself guidance. No live source lookup. Defaults: volume 0, US, no resale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geo | No | ||
| resell | No | ||
| volume | No | ||
| use_case | Yes | Describe the data you need and what you want to build. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / geoAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / resellAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "yes",
+ "no"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / volumeAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 1000000000000000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds the key behavioral trait that this is a static/offline plan rather than a live lookup, which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe output format, limits on the three sources, or how resale clause data is sourced.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then defaults. Efficient and readable, though the plan-content list is somewhat dense and could be trimmed.
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 4-param tool with an output plan and no output schema, the description explains what the plan contains and the defaults, which is adequate. It leaves gaps on parameter formats and the boundary of the three-source limit, preventing a high score.
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 only 25%, with three of four parameters (geo, resell, volume) undocumented in the schema. The description partly compensates by stating defaults for volume, geo, and resell, but doesn't clarify expected geo format (country, state, city?) or the business meaning of volume/resell. Baseline 3 is warranted given the schema gap is partially offset.
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 produces a 'full Data Finder plan' for up to three data sources, enumerating the plan contents (fit, cost, resale terms, URL/read date, DIY guidance). This is a specific verb+resource, though it doesn't differentiate from any sibling tool by name — unsurprising given the siblings are mostly unrelated calculators.
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 gives clear context: 'No live source lookup' sets the expectation, and the defaults (volume 0, US, no resale) tell the agent what happens when args are omitted. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the non-live nature is implied.
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.