Retrieves current facts for a single account—stage, amount, pains, objections, and competitors—with cited sources so agents can ground account decisions in CRM, email, and call data.
Current facts (stage, amount, pains, objections, competitors, ...) for one account, with sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful context that results are 'current' facts and include sources, but it does not explain account-matching behavior, error handling, or response structure beyond the field examples.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The field examples are compact and immediately clarify what 'facts' means.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description needs to compensate but does not. It omits account identifier semantics, usage relative to search_facts, and return-shape details, leaving important gaps for a retrieval 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?
The only parameter is 'account', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description confirms the tool operates on one account but adds no identifier format, matching rules, or other meaning beyond the bare schema property name.
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 states a specific resource: current facts for one account, including example fields and source provenance. It is clearly distinguishable from a general search tool by the 'one account' scope, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling search_facts tool.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. With a sibling named search_facts, an agent must infer whether to call this account-scoped tool or the search tool, and the description does not help make that choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.