SupplyMaven API Pro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the signals are statistically validated (Granger-causal with p≤0.01), include lag time and directional accuracy, return status categories (ACTIVE, WATCH, CLEAR), and are restricted to paid tier only. This covers access control, data nature, and output format, though it doesn't mention rate limits or error handling.

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 highly concise and well-structured: three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, signal characteristics, return values, and access restrictions. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (statistical validation, multiple data sources), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job of providing context. It explains what the tool does, the nature of the signals, the return statuses, and access restrictions. However, it doesn't detail the output structure (e.g., format of returned signals) or potential limitations, leaving some gaps for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters, where the description should compensate by providing rich context about the operation.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving statistically validated leading indicator signals evaluated against live GDI and SMI data. It specifies the nature of the signals (Granger-causal relationships with specific statistical thresholds), distinguishes from siblings by focusing on signal status rather than raw data or narratives, and uses precise terminology like 'ACTIVE, WATCH, or CLEAR status'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for accessing validated leading indicator signals with status assessments. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_predictive_signals' or 'get_signal_narratives' by focusing on statistical validation and status. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives, though the sibling list suggests related tools.

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