search_compoundsCase-insensitive search over published compound names and aliases (brand names, research codes, shorthand like "reta"). Returns the top 10 matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Name or alias fragment, e.g. "reta" or "Mounjaro" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: case-insensitive matching, restriction to published compounds, and a fixed top-10 result cap. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 is a single sentence that front-loads the most important behavior (case-insensitive search) and packs in the resource scope, alias examples, and result limit without waste. Every element earns its place.
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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what is searched, how matching behaves, and how many results are returned. No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the query parameter is already well documented. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the notion of aliases and case-insensitivity. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without needing additional compensation.
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 action ('search'), a clear resource ('published compound names and aliases'), and concrete result behavior ('Returns the top 10 matches'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on flexible name/alias lookup rather than vendor listing or exact compound retrieval.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs to find compounds by name or alias fragment, including shorthand like 'reta'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the search-oriented scope is evident enough for correct selection in most cases.
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.