Reveal a verified email + mobile for a lead ref returned by find_leads. Spends 12 credits (email 2 + mobile 10); fully refunded if nothing verifiable is found — you are never charged on a miss.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | The `ref` from a find_leads row. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the credit cost (12 credits, broken down) and the refund policy if nothing verifiable is found. It does not mention authorization requirements or side effects, but the credit transparency is strong.
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: first states purpose, second adds credit/refund info. It is compact, front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information with 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?
For a simple single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisite (ref from find_leads), credit cost, and refund policy. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without needing additional clarification.
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 100% for the single 'ref' parameter, and the schema description already states it comes from find_leads. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'reveal' and the specific resources ('verified email + mobile') for a lead ref from find_leads. It distinguishes itself from sibling find_leads by specifying the input source and output.
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 ties usage to having a ref from find_leads, and mentions credit spending and refund policy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparison with sibling audit_ads, though the different purpose makes it clear.
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.