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 what the tool does (flags abnormal volatility based on 24-hour price changes and extreme levels) and what it returns (current price, change percentage, trend, risk assessment). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which are important for a real-time alert tool. It doesn't contradict annotations, so no contradiction flag.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core function and then expanding into use cases. Every sentence adds value, such as detailing the return data and user scenarios, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating the question and use cases more tightly. Overall, it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 (a real-time alert tool with no parameters and no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, and return values, but lacks output schema details (e.g., format of risk assessment) and behavioral aspects like update frequency. With no annotations, it does a good job but could be more comprehensive for full contextual 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 parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter info, which is fine, but it could have mentioned if any implicit filters (e.g., time ranges) are applied. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description compensates by explaining the tool's scope without parameter clutter.

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 ('Get alerts for commodities experiencing abnormal price volatility') and resources ('commodities'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'commodity_price_monitor' (which likely monitors general prices) or 'supply_chain_disruption_alerts' (which focuses on disruptions rather than price volatility). It answers a specific question ('which commodities are behaving unusually right now?'), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Answers 'which commodities are behaving unusually right now?'') and provides clear user contexts ('Used by procurement teams to time purchases, commodity traders to identify opportunities, and supply chain managers to anticipate cost changes'). This gives strong guidance on its application versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools, the context is sufficiently detailed.

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