Find supplement-supplement interactions (765 pairs from clinical evidence) and drug-supplement interactions (1,626 FDA-validated pairs). Returns synergies, antagonisms, absorption conflicts, and timing recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplement | Yes | Supplement name | |
| include_drug_interactions | No | Include FDA drug-supplement interactions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries burden. It discloses that interactions come from clinical evidence and FDA-validated pairs, and includes counts. However, it omits behaviors like data freshness, pagination, or whether results are ordered. Lacks depth for a mutation-free tool.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences that convey purpose, scope, and output types without waste. Every phrase adds information.
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 output schema, description explains return categories adequately. Two parameters are well-covered. Lacks specifics on response format or limits, but sufficient for basic understanding.
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%, but description adds value by explaining what the return types are (synergies, antagonisms, etc.) beyond schema. Also clarifies the default for include_drug_interactions. Adds meaning beyond the schema alone.
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 it finds supplement-supplement and drug-supplement interactions, specifying counts and types (synergies, antagonisms, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools focused on individual supplement info, biomarkers, or conditions.
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?
Implied usage: use when needing interaction data for a supplement. No explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but context from sibling names suggests other tools for different queries.
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.