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 traits: it returns a real-time composite score (GDI) with a 0-100 range, higher scores indicate greater risk, and it's built from 200+ live data variables across multiple pillars. However, it lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or error handling.

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 purpose and key output. Each sentence adds useful information (e.g., score range, data sources, user roles), but it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details more tightly.

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 of a risk assessment tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, output semantics, data sources, and usage context. However, it could improve by specifying the exact return format or any prerequisites for use.

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 adds value by explaining the output (GDI score and its components) and data sources, which compensates for the lack of an output schema, though it could be more detailed on the return format.

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 ('Assess current global supply chain disruption risk') and resources ('Global Disruption Index'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'commodity_price_monitor' or 'get_port_congestion_trends' by emphasizing a composite, multi-pillar risk assessment rather than isolated 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 clear context for when to use this tool by listing target users ('procurement teams, logistics planners, commodity traders, and supply chain managers') and use cases ('real-time supply chain visibility and risk monitoring'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings.

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