Compare nutrition profiles of multiple foods side-by-side. Identifies winners by protein and calorie density.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Comma-separated USDA FDC IDs (e.g. "173950,2187885,1103516") | 173950,2187885,1103516 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's function (compare and identify winners) clearly, but could mention that it is a read-only operation without side effects.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key outcome. No unnecessary words.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the return format or that it provides comparisons, but it is adequate.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the 'ids' parameter with an example. The description adds context about identifying winners but does not add meaning beyond the schema.
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 it compares nutrition profiles of multiple foods side-by-side and identifies winners by protein and calorie density. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_nutrition' (single food) and 'search_food'.
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 for comparing multiple foods but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use or what to use instead.
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 distinct purpose: searching for foods, retrieving full nutrition by ID, and comparing multiple foods. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: search_food, get_nutrition, compare_foods.
Three tools is a minimal but reasonable set for a focused nutrition server covering search, detail, and comparison. The scope is narrow, so the count is appropriate.
Core operations are covered (search, retrieve, compare), but the compare tool is limited to protein and calorie density, missing other nutrient comparisons. Minor gap.