Find which biomarkers are affected by a given supplement. Returns direction (up/down), confidence, dose, and health goal mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 25, max 100) | |
| supplement | Yes | Supplement name (e.g., 'fish oil', 'curcumin', 'vitamin D3') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (direction, confidence, dose, health goal mapping) but does not mention read-only nature, authentication, or rate limits. This is adequate but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences effectively convey purpose and return value. No fluff; every sentence adds value.
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 the tool has only 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is mostly complete. It explains output fields but could mention pagination or the scope of biomarkers.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'supplement' and 'limit'. The description adds only a mention of return fields, not parameter details. 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 'Find', the resource 'biomarkers affected by a given supplement', and specifies the returned data (direction, confidence, dose, health goal mapping). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_supplements_for_biomarker' which do the reverse.
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 implies usage when you have a supplement name, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent receives no negative guidance.
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: searching for supplements or conditions, retrieving supplement info, interactions, biomarker mappings, top brands. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern with verbs 'get_' and 'search_', and nouns are appropriately plural or singular.
8 tools is well-scoped for a health supplement knowledge base, covering core queries without unnecessary complexity.
The tool set covers search, information retrieval, interactions, biomarker mapping, and brand quality, leaving no obvious gaps for a read-only reference server.