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 key behavioral traits: the tool returns real-time alerts, categorizes them by type and supply chain stage, includes severity levels and risk scores, and has tier-based access restrictions. This covers operational scope and limitations well, though it lacks details on rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific details on alert categories and tier restrictions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool does, its output structure, and usage constraints. It covers the purpose, alert types, and tier-based behavior adequately. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or example output, but overall it is highly complete for this context.

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 focuses on output semantics, explaining the categories and fields in the returned alerts (e.g., severity, affected stage, risk score). This adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 real-time supply chain disruption alerts') and resources ('from global news intelligence and event detection'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'commodity_price_monitor' or 'get_port_congestion_trends' by focusing on categorized alerts across multiple disruption types rather than specific metrics or trends.

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 on when to use this tool by specifying the types of alerts returned (e.g., port closures, trade policy changes) and the tier-based severity filtering (critical-only for free, all for paid). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'get_border_delays' for specific delay types.

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