list_vendorsEvery tracked vendor that is currently alive: DOSE SCORE (when reviewed), liveness status, last-verified date, trust chips, canonical review URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendors | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (DOSE score with condition, liveness status, last-verified date, trust chips, canonical URL) and clarifies the liveness filter, which is beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction with 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?
A single sentence with a clear subject and a colon-separated list of output fields. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Every tracked vendor that is currently alive') and wastes no words. Perfectly concise.
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?
The tool is a simple no-parameter list operation. An output schema exists, so return structure is already documented. The description explains what 'alive' means and lists the fields, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or limits, but these are not essential for a basic listing tool and are likely covered by the output schema.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter info because there are none. The description's field list effectively describes the output, which is not part 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 states a specific verb ('list'), a resource ('vendors'), and a precise scope ('currently alive'), distinguishing it from siblings like best_vendors_for (which implies ranking) and search_compounds (which is search-oriented). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly state that this is the generic listing tool for all alive vendors, nor does it exclude scenarios better served by best_vendors_for or search_compounds. Usage guidance is entirely absent.
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.