Page an entity's structured feeds on AITWIRE — products, services, articles or locations (tenant_id comes from aitwire_entity_lookup).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items (default 10) | |
| feed_type | Yes | ||
| tenant_id | Yes | AITWIRE tenant ID (from lookup) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the dependency on aitwire_entity_lookup and the feed types, but does not describe pagination behavior (e.g., cursor-based vs offset) or the return structure. With annotations providing safety context, this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentence that packs essential information: purpose, feed types, and dependency. No filler words.
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?
The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema). The description covers purpose, types, and prerequisite, but omits the shape of the response or how paging works beyond 'limit'. Still, for a read-only list tool with strong annotations, it is mostly complete.
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 schema already describes limit (default 10) and tenant_id (from lookup). The description reinforces the tenant_id source and enumerates the feed_type enum values, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema's 67% coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Page' and clearly identifies the resource: 'an entity's structured feeds on AITWIRE'. It enumerates the feed types (products, services, articles, locations) and notes the tenant_id dependency, distinguishing it from sibling tools like aitwire_entity_lookup.
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 explicitly tells the agent that tenant_id comes from aitwire_entity_lookup, establishing a clear workflow prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: entity_lookup retrieves an entity record, entity_feeds pages structured content for that entity, and grounding checks a claim against the entity's record. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names start with 'aitwire_' and use snake_case, but two include 'entity_' and one does not (aitwire_grounding). Minor inconsistency but still predictable and readable.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to entity verification and feed retrieval. Each tool is essential, and the count is ideal for this focused domain.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: lookup an entity, retrieve its feeds, and ground claims against its record. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of verifying entity-supplied information.