Get comprehensive company profile with all available data - contacts, projects, pricing, reviews analysis, market position, and comparison with competitors in same region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lists the data included but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is real-time. It is clear about the output scope but lacks depth.
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 sentence of 18 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be structured (e.g., bullet points) for better readability. No wasted words.
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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lists many data types. It lacks explanation of prerequisites (e.g., valid slug format) and potential limitations. Adequate but incomplete without clarifying the parameter.
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 only parameter slug has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what slug represents (e.g., company identifier or URL slug). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is critical given the low schema coverage.
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 it returns a comprehensive company profile including contacts, projects, pricing, reviews, market position, and competitor comparison. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_company (basic info) and compare_companies (just comparison). Verb 'Get' + resource 'company profile' is specific.
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 it is for obtaining a full company profile, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives (e.g., use get_company for basic info, compare_companies for comparisons). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: search_companies, find_best_companies, smart_match, and contractor_recommendation all find contractors; get_company, company_portfolio, and company_deep_profile all return company details; calculate_cost and project_estimator both estimate costs. This makes it difficult for an agent to reliably choose the correct tool.
Tool names mix verb-first patterns (get_*, search_*, compare_*, calculate_*, export_*, find_*, request_*) with noun-first patterns (company_deep_profile, market_report, price_comparison, etc.). All names use snake_case, but the inconsistent verb/noun placement makes the set less predictable.
24 tools falls squarely in the 16-25 'feel heavy' range. While the server covers a broad domain (companies, projects, analytics, leads, estimation), the presence of many overlapping tools suggests the count could be consolidated without losing functionality.
The toolset covers the core domain well: searching companies and projects, retrieving full details, comparing entities, estimating costs, obtaining market analytics, and managing the lead lifecycle (request_quote -> get_lead_status). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed per-review text, but that is explicitly stated as unavailable), but there are no dead ends for typical workflows.