Identify cross-company buying and intent signals, from vendor swaps to new tooling, ranked by score with evidence.
Cross-company buying/intent signals (e.g. vendor swaps, new tooling) ranked by score, with evidence. Free plan: last 7 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max signals (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Signal keyword, e.g. 'migrated from' or a technology name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ranking by score, inclusion of evidence, and a 7-day lookback on the free plan, but it does not mention return shape, pagination, or read-only behavior.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and enriched with two examples and a plan limitation. No filler or redundancy.
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?
Adequate for a simple 2-parameter search, but with no output schema or annotations, the description omits return structure and sorting details that would help an agent fully understand the result. It remains usable, but not complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds concrete query examples ('migrated from', technology name) that go beyond the schema's generic 'Signal keyword' and clarify expected input.
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 identifies a cross-company buying/intent signal search ranked by score, distinguishing it from sibling tools scoped to a single company (e.g. revnuvo_get_company_timeline). It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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 phrase 'cross-company' implies use against company-specific sibling tools, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative is named. 'Free plan: last 7 days' adds a temporal constraint but not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.