Get FULL company portfolio: details, all projects, prices, reviews, contacts. Comprehensive dossier for due diligence or hiring decisions. Args: company_slug: Company slug identifier (from search results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns a 'comprehensive dossier' but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond data scope.
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 plus one-line parameter description. Front-loaded with key action and scope. No redundant or unnecessary text.
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 an output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes high-level output (details, projects, prices, etc.) and use case. Missing explicit read-only declaration, but overall complete for selecting and invoking the tool.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to 'company_slug' by stating it is 'from search results', guiding the agent to source it correctly. Could be more specific (e.g., exact format), but provides useful context.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Get FULL company portfolio' and specifies included data (details, projects, prices, reviews, contacts). Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_company' and 'company_deep_profile' by emphasizing comprehensive coverage for due diligence/hiring.
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?
Implies usage for due diligence or hiring decisions, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_company' or 'company_deep_profile'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria provided.
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.