Full intake terms & compliance requirements for FEODE's machining/testing service: required RFQ fields, KYB-lite (legal entity / country / real contact), end-use declaration, prohibited items, IP & liability terms, prepayment & accepted payment methods (bank wire / T/T).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description's content focus adds no behavioral insights beyond confirming it's a read operation. No mention of rate limits, authentication, or side effects is needed given the read-only nature.
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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every part is informative. No unnecessary words.
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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete by listing the main content areas. However, it could mention the format or structure of the returned data for full completeness.
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?
With zero parameters and schema coverage 100%, the description adds value by detailing what the output covers (RFQ fields, KYB-lite, prohibited items, etc.), which compensates for the lack of parameter semantics.
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 tool returns 'Full intake terms & compliance requirements for FEODE's machining/testing service', specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_certifications and get_company_profile by focusing on machining/testing service terms.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies use before submitting an RFQ (submit_machining_rfq is a sibling), no direct guidance or when-not conditions are provided.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but there is potential confusion between get_product_specs (product lines) and get_drill_pipe_specs (drill pipe items), as well as between list_drill_pipe and search_drill_pipe. However, descriptions clarify these differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_, list_, search_, submit_), making it predictable for agents.
12 tools cover two main domains (FEODE company and drill string reference) without excess or deficiency, providing a well-scoped set.
The tool surface covers key operations for both domains: company info, product/service lifecycle, and drill string reference. Minor gaps like lack of company news or additional equipment categories, but core workflows are supported.