get_event_company_intel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it is a paid endpoint, enriched responses include specific fields, and it returns an x402 challenge in default non-settling mode. This provides useful transparency beyond a basic GET call.

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 brief (two sentences) and efficiently conveys the endpoint, paid nature, enriched response details, and x402 behavior. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the endpoint, reveals payment requirements, and notes special response fields. It lacks details on how to access enriched responses or handle the x402, but overall it is adequate.

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 parameter 'id', which is described as 'Event identifier accepted by the hosted API.' The description adds that it's a thin wrapper for GET /events/:id/company-intel, confirming the id maps to the event ID in the URL. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, 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 ('get') and resource ('company intel for an event') and specifies the underlying endpoint. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_company_risk_summary' or 'inspect_x402_challenge', which may cause confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentions it is a paid endpoint and returns x402 in default mode, but does not explain how to handle those conditions or compare with similar tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.