Get full nutrition profile for a specific food by USDA FDC ID. Returns macros, vitamins, and minerals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fdc_id | No | USDA FoodData Central ID (e.g. 173950 = avocado raw) | 173950 |
| format | No | abridged or full | abridged |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns data without side effects, and the source ('USDA') is mentioned. Could explicitly note it is read-only, but the verb 'Get' implies safe retrieval.
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?
Single sentence with 15 words, efficiently conveying purpose, input key, and output summary. 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?
No output schema exists, but the description lists the return categories (macros, vitamins, minerals), which is helpful. Could detail the response structure more, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema with coverage 100%. The tool description adds context for fdc_id by mentioning USDA FDC ID, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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?
The description specifies the action ('Get full nutrition profile'), resource ('specific food by USDA FDC ID'), and output ('macros, vitamins, and minerals'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single food profile 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 implies usage when you have a specific FDC ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_foods or search_food. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.