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 the tool's output behavior: returns current GDI score with 7-day, 14-day, and 30-day comparisons including direction, velocity, pillar-level momentum, and identifies driving factors. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, 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 efficiently structured: it opens with the core purpose, details the return values, specifies the questions it answers, and concludes with usage contexts. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse while being comprehensive.

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 (trend analysis with multiple comparisons) and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what the tool returns. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structured data vs narrative) and doesn't mention any prerequisites or authentication needs, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information since none are needed, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary details.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get trend analysis of the Global Disruption Index over time.' It specifies the exact resource (Global Disruption Index) and action (trend analysis), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'risk_pillar_breakdown' or 'supply_chain_risk_assessment' by focusing on temporal comparisons and momentum metrics.

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 explicit usage contexts: 'Used by supply chain executives for weekly status briefings and by traders to time entry/exit decisions around supply chain volatility.' It answers specific questions ('Is supply chain risk getting better or worse, how fast, and why?'), guiding when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives like 'get_supply_chain_weekly_brief' or 'get_predictive_signals'.

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