best_vendors_forLive offers for one published compound, one best offer per vendor, sorted by price per mg ascending (blends and unpriceable products last). Prices are integer minor units plus display strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compoundSlug | Yes | Compound slug, e.g. "retatrutide" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| offers | Yes | ||
| compound | Yes | ||
| compoundUrl | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: results are live, limited to one best offer per vendor, sorted by price per mg ascending, with blends and unpriceable products placed last, and prices represented as integer minor units plus display strings. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that materially helps an agent reason about results.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds sorting and price-format details that are essential for interpreting results.
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 a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description covers the key operational details: scope, offer selection, sort order, and price format. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter compoundSlug, including an example value. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the slug must refer to a published compound, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states a specific verb-resource pair: returns live vendor offers for one published compound, with one best offer per vendor. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on per-vendor best pricing for a specific compound rather than compound details or vendor lists.
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 phrase 'for one published compound' implies the tool requires a specific compoundSlug and is used when vendor pricing offers are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_compound, list_vendors, or search_compounds, nor any exclusions.
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 targets a distinct operation: searching compounds, retrieving a full compound record, listing all vendors, and fetching vendor offers for a compound. The two compound-focused tools are clearly separated by search versus exact lookup.
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_compound, list_vendors, search_compounds. The outlier is best_vendors_for, which is still readable and fits the domain but breaks the otherwise consistent pattern.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a read-only compound and vendor lookup service. Each tool provides a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core user journey: search for a compound, view its full record, check vendor offers for it, and inspect vendor credibility. Since this is a read-only lookup domain, mutation tools are not expected and no obvious gaps remain.