Get the papers that this paper cites (its bibliography). Use when the user asks 'what does X cite' or 'show me the references'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | Max references (default 25, max 100). | |
| id | Yes | arXiv ID or OpenAlex Work ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's statement 'Get the papers that this paper cites' is consistent and adds no contradiction. However, it does not elaborate on behavioral aspects like pagination or result limits, though the schema does mention a max of 100 for parameter 'k'.
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: two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and usage guidance in the second.
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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. A minor gap is the lack of description for the output format, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'id' and 'k' parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score applies.
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 explicitly states 'Get the papers that this paper cites (its bibliography)', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'citations' which would retrieve papers citing the given paper.
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 explicit usage examples: 'when the user asks what does X cite or show me the references'. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the sibling tool list and context make it clear that 'citations' is the alternative for incoming citations.
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: citation retrieval is split into inbound and outbound, paper data is divided into metadata, full text, figures, entities, and structure, with separate search and similarity tools. No overlap.
Most tools use snake_case, but there's a mix of 'get_' prefix (get_entities, get_figures, etc.) and direct action names (citations, references, search_papers). This is minor inconsistency; overall pattern is clear.
9 tools is well within the optimal range for a scientific paper server. Each tool adds unique value without overwhelming the interface.
The server covers the full lifecycle for paper retrieval: search, metadata, full text, figures, citations (both directions), entities, structure, and similarity. No obvious gaps for its read-only purpose.
