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 explains the return format (historical actuals and projections with isActual flag) and mentions the STEO's authority, but doesn't cover potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, explains what's returned, establishes authority, and provides usage context. Every sentence adds value, though the final sentence could be slightly more concise.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about what data is returned, how to interpret it (isActual flag), and typical use cases. It could be more complete by mentioning the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or data update frequency, but covers the essentials well.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool returns. It provides useful context about the data structure (distinguishing actual vs projected data) that goes beyond the empty schema.

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: 'Get the US Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO)' with specific details about what it returns (historical actuals and forward-looking projections for various energy metrics). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on official government energy forecasts rather than other supply chain or economic indicators.

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 energy traders, logistics companies budgeting fuel costs, and macro analysts.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the siblings for different energy-related needs.

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