list_nodesThe 49 sovereign nodes (the spine) — each with its GS1 GTIN and CLEAN per-node maker (supply) and retailer (demand) counts (separate subqueries, never summed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a non-obvious aggregation rule ('separate subqueries, never summed') and fixes the result cardinality at 49, which prevents misuse. It does not mention ordering or response wrapping, but with no parameters and an output schema present, this is sufficient for a simple list operation.
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 information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core subject, then adds the key fields and the critical 'never summed' caveat, earning every word.
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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what nodes are returned, what each item contains, and an important aggregation caveat. There are no meaningful gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking the 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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output semantics instead.
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 specifies the exact resource ('49 sovereign nodes') and the output attributes (GS1 GTIN, per-node maker and retailer counts), so an agent can tell what data this tool returns. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'lists' or name sibling alternatives, which prevents a perfect score, but the title and content make the purpose clear.
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 this is the tool for enumerating the 49 sovereign nodes and their counts, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. An agent must infer from context rather than receive instructions on when to prefer this over sibling tools.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: resolve_gtin, resolve_sparks, and get_signal_chain all resolve GTINs to different but closely related signals, and resolve_node vs node_market both return the same node with makers/retailers counts. Agents will struggle to pick the correct tool without reading deep into descriptions.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_, count_, find_, get_, list_, resolve_), but node_market breaks the pattern and the get_ vs resolve_ distinction is not obvious. Overall readable with only minor deviations.
14 tools is well-scoped for a CPG knowledge graph covering GTIN resolution, eligibility, supply/demand search, node metadata, taxonomy, and brand coverage. Each tool reasonably earns its place without overwhelming the surface.
The surface covers the apparent domain comprehensively: GTIN resolution, eligibility checks, maker/retailer discovery, node/spine queries, SKU taxonomy, brand listings, signal chains, and registries. For a read-only knowledge graph, there are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations.