What this wire does and doesn't cover: per-source freshness and volume, category mix, last refresh. Call when unsure whether a question is answerable from here. The corpus is a curated marketing/growth niche (incl. the AI shifts affecting it) — not general news.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns coverage data on freshness, volume, category mix, and last refresh. It also notes the corpus scope is 'a curated marketing/growth niche' and 'not general news', managing expectations. No side effects or authorization requirements are mentioned, but the tool is read-only and safe.
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 extremely concise, using just two sentences to convey the tool's purpose, usage, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the key question ('What this wire does and doesn't cover'), and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary details.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what data it provides, when to use it, and the scope of the corpus. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to understand its function.
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 zero parameters, so the description trivially adds no parameter-specific meaning. However, the description does provide context about the tool's output, which indirectly aids understanding. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the lack of parameters.
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 function: providing coverage information including 'per-source freshness and volume, category mix, last refresh'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the corpus scope rather than specific items or trends. The phrase 'What this wire does and doesn't cover' directly communicates its purpose.
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 advises using this tool 'when unsure whether a question is answerable from here', providing a clear usage context. It also outlines what coverage information is available. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternative siblings, leaving some room for improvement.
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 uniquely identifiable purpose: coverage checks answering capability, get_item retrieves a single item, search handles queries, topic_pulse explores discussion around a topic, trending shows rising topics, and whats_new provides the freshest items. No ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent 'earlywire_' prefix and use descriptive, lowercase snake_case names (coverage, get_item, search, topic_pulse, trending, whats_new). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a marketing/growth intelligence niche. It provides essential operations without being too sparse or overloaded. Each tool contributes to a coherent workflow.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of interacting with the curated intelligence: discovery (trending, whats_new), search (search), deep dive (get_item, topic_pulse), and scope checking (coverage). No obvious gaps for a read-only intelligence service.
