Check if market data gathering is complete and retrieve the results. Call this after get_supplemental_context — poll every 5-10 seconds until status is COMPLETE or FAILED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The Job ID returned by get_supplemental_context |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent, read-only, non-destructive. Description adds key polling behavior: recommended frequency and termination conditions (COMPLETE/FAILED), which goes beyond the annotation's coverage.
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 sentences: first states purpose and after-call dependency, second gives polling instructions. No redundancy, optimally front-loaded.
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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, when to use, polling pattern, and expected status values. No gaps.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'job_id' with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond confirming it's the ID from get_supplemental_context. Baseline score applies.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks if market data gathering is complete and retrieves results. It specifies the verb 'check', the resource 'supplemental status', and provides context that it should be called after get_supplemental_context, distinguishing it from siblings.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (after get_supplemental_context) and how to poll (every 5-10 seconds until COMPLETE or FAILED). Provides clear usage instructions with no ambiguity.
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.
The tools are largely distinct, with clear roles for discovery, search, evidence, node detail, neighbor exploration, supplemental data, visualization, and account checks. The main overlap risk is between brand_tracker and search_graph for brand-specific queries, but their descriptions steer usage toward different granularities.
Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun structure such as search_graph, get_node, list_graphs, and check_supplemental_status. The only clear outlier is brand_tracker, which is a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb_noun name.
13 tools cover a complete brand-intelligence workflow without feeling bloated: discovery, search, deep dives, evidence retrieval, supplemental context, visualization, account management, and external URL handling. Each tool has a real role in the overall pipeline.
The tool surface covers the full research journey: list_graphs, search_graph, get_node, get_neighbors, get_evidence, get_supplemental_context, check_supplemental_status, visual generation, and account/capabilities checks. This is a read-only intelligence domain, so the absence of create/update/delete tools is appropriate, not a gap.