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 specifies the data sources (Federal Reserve, New York Fed, EIA) and types of indicators returned, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with no output schema.

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 explains what the tool does and returns, and the second specifies the target users. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the user context into the first sentence.

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 (returning multiple economic indicators) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It lists the data sources and indicators but does not detail the return format, data freshness, or error handling, which are important 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 does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output and use case, which aligns with the schema's simplicity.

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 key economic indicators') and resources (Federal Reserve data, Producer Price Index, GSCPI, EIA forecasts). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on macroeconomic indicators rather than specific disruptions, prices, or alerts, making its scope explicit and unique.

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 ('Used by supply chain strategists, procurement leaders, and economic analysts who need the macro backdrop for supply chain planning'), indicating it's for high-level economic analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as for commodity-specific data or real-time alerts.

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