market_signals-pause_subscription
Pause a market signal subscription
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscriptionId | Yes | The unique identifier of the subscription to pause |
Pause a market signal subscription
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscriptionId | Yes | The unique identifier of the subscription to pause |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not explain what pausing entails (e.g., whether it stops data collection or billing, whether it is reversible, or any side effects). It essentially repeats the tool name without providing additional transparency.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is almost a tautology of the tool name and provides no additional informative value, placing it at the minimum viable level for conciseness.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and minimal description, the context is incomplete. The description does not mention the relationship to resume_subscription, the effects of pausing, or any prerequisites. Given the simplicity of the tool, a slightly richer description would be expected to fully understand the operation's impact.
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 100% description coverage for the single parameter subscriptionId, and the parameter description is clear. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 verb 'Pause' and the resource 'market signal subscription', distinguishing it from sibling tools like resume_subscription and delete_subscription. It precisely identifies the action and the object.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related actions like resume, delete, or update, nor does it indicate situations where pausing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.