supply_chain_intelligence

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost ($0.05 via x402) and the data returned, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention caching, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose ('Global supply chain stress monitor') and quickly enumerate key outputs. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the returned fields and their significance. It could be improved by briefly explaining how the stress_score is derived, but overall it is complete for its complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is assigned. The description does not add parameter detail, but it is not needed since there are none.

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 defines the tool as a 'Global supply chain stress monitor' and explicitly lists the data it returns (stress_score, shipping rates, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like agricultural_commodities or energy_markets, which focus on specific sectors.

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 context that high stress_score indicates input cost pressure and delivery delays upstream of earnings, which hints at usage for earnings analysis. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or specify conditions for when to use or avoid this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.