Retrieve current normalized supplier quote revisions for one buyer sourcing request, including unquoted lines, compatibility, price, availability, lead time, terms, and evidence. SupplySlate returns explicit tradeoffs and applies no hidden winner score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offers | Yes | ||
| unquoted_items | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that SupplySlate returns explicit tradeoffs and applies no hidden winner score. It also clarifies that data is normalized and includes unquoted lines, giving insight into output quality and methodology. This adds value without contradicting annotations.
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 consists of two focused sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. The first sentence efficiently lists the key data points, and the second sentence adds a unique, useful behavioral note about tradeoffs and no hidden winner score. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 an output schema present and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description thoroughly covers purpose, scope, and data content. It lacks only explicit details such as pagination or error handling, but these are not essential given the output schema and simple parameter. The tool's function is well contextualized.
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?
The schema has one parameter, request_id, with a pattern but no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'for one buyer sourcing request' implicitly maps request_id to the sourcing request, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter format or provide examples. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, so the description provides adequate but minimal compensation for the lack of schema coverage.
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 uses the verb 'Retrieve' with a specific resource: 'current normalized supplier quote revisions for one buyer sourcing request.' It lists the included data (unquoted lines, compatibility, price, availability, lead time, terms, evidence) and differentiates from siblings by scoping to one sourcing request and emphasizing normalization. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.
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 needing a consolidated, normalized view of all supplier quotes for a single sourcing request, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_supplier_rfq or list_supplier_rfqs. There is no exclusion or named alternative, so the usage context is present but not fully explicit.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.