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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a monitoring tool (implies read-only), returns specific metrics (vessel count, speed, congestion score), and explains the real-time nature and global impact context. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second adds critical context about global impact. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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's complexity (real-time monitoring with strategic implications), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and why it matters. A minor gap is the lack of explicit output format details, but the metrics listed provide good semantic understanding.

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 adds no parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's function and output. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by explaining what the tool does.

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 with specific verbs ('monitor', 'returns') and resources ('real-time vessel traffic and congestion at critical maritime chokepoints'), listing specific examples like Suez Canal and Panama Canal. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on maritime chokepoints rather than other supply chain aspects like air cargo, rail, or manufacturing.

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 ('monitor real-time vessel traffic and congestion', 'detects that signal in real time'), explaining its value in detecting global shipping reroutes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the maritime focus implies differentiation.

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