Find the highest-quality brands for a supplement, ranked by ProofMark (Aviado's quality score: third-party testing, certifications, and quality metrics).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (max 20) | |
| supplement | Yes | Supplement name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by ProofMark and explains what that is (third-party testing, certifications, quality metrics). It does not mention return format, but for a read-only query tool, this is adequate transparency.
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-loads the purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the tool's function and key differentiator.
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?
Description is minimal but sufficient for a simple 2-parameter tool. However, with no output schema, it could have described the return structure (e.g., list of brand names with scores) or mentioned edge cases like empty results.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about ranking but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond the schema. It does not explain the supplement parameter format or the limit's role in quality ranking.
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' and the resource 'highest-quality brands for a supplement', and explains the ranking metric (ProofMark). It distinguishes from siblings like get_supplement_info or search_supplements by focusing on brand quality ranking.
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 when to use (when wanting top brands for a supplement) but does not explicitly provide guidance on when not to use or offer alternatives among siblings. No exclusion criteria or context about alternatives.
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.