get_compoundFull record for one published compound by slug: aliases, category, evidence tier, routes, typical protocol, half-life, status line, canonical URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Compound slug, e.g. "retatrutide" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compound | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema and output schema already provide (e.g., error behavior, pagination). It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but it adds little extra value.
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 front-loads the core action ('Full record for one published compound by slug') and then lists returned fields. It is efficient and easy to parse, though the field list is a bit lengthy; still, it avoids redundancy and is well-structured.
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?
For a simple get-by-slug tool with an output schema and annotations covering readOnly/idempotent behavior, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what it returns and how to identify the compound. Missing explicit usage guidance is a minor gap, but overall the tool is well-specified.
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 covers the single 'slug' parameter with a clear example, and the description merely repeats 'by slug' without adding further semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
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's purpose: it gets a full record for one published compound by slug, listing the specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_compounds and list_vendors, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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 you have a slug and need a full record), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison to siblings like search_compounds or best_vendors_for, so guidance is only implicit.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: search_compounds discovers compounds, get_compound retrieves compound details, best_vendors_for fetches offers for a compound, and list_vendors lists vendors. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Three tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (get_compound, list_vendors, search_compounds), but best_vendors_for breaks the pattern by using a descriptive phrase without a leading verb. Overall naming is still snake_case, readable, and mostly predictable.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a read-only compound and vendor lookup server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflows are covered: find a compound, get its details, see vendor offers, and view vendor trust information. Minor gaps exist, such as no browse-all-compounds endpoint and no individual vendor detail tool, but agents can work around these with the existing tools.