Find scored, in-market B2B leads (hot-signal) for an offer + ICP. Returns a list with a fit score and a call brief, but WITHOUT contacts — call reveal_contact with a row's ref to get email/phone. Searching is FREE: credits are only spent on reveals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icp | Yes | Who you sell to (industry, size, geo, role). | |
| count | No | How many leads (1-25, default 10). | |
| offer | Yes | What you sell, in a sentence. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the output (scored leads, fit score, call brief, no contacts) and the pricing model (free search, credits on reveal). This is transparent for a search tool, though potential data freshness is not mentioned.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and efficiently conveys key usage notes.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (scored leads, fit score, call brief, no contacts) and the pricing model. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and integration with 'reveal_contact'.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for its 3 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema descriptions; it references the output 'ref' but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 applies.
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 finds scored B2B leads for a given offer and ICP, using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reveal_contact' which handles contact details.
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 explicitly states that this tool returns leads without contacts and directs the agent to use 'reveal_contact' with a row's 'ref' for contact info. It also clarifies that searching is free and credits are only spent on reveals, guiding appropriate usage.
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 clearly distinct purpose: auditing ads, finding leads, and revealing contact details. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: audit_ads, find_leads, reveal_contact.
Three tools is appropriate for the server's focused purpose of ad auditing and lead generation. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
The tools cover the core workflow of auditing ads and finding/revealing leads. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for managing or updating leads after revelation, but the set is well-scoped for its intended use.