demand_pulsePublic, k-anonymous demand signal from the directory: trending searches, most-saved and most-installed tools. Aggregates only — sourced from ≥5 distinct anonymous sessions per entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral context: it is public, k-anonymous, aggregates from at least 5 distinct sessions, and is sourced from the directory. This adds value beyond what would be in annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with key attributes (public, k-anonymous, aggregates). Every sentence serves a purpose, no waste.
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?
All critical aspects are covered: source, aggregation method, anonymity guarantee. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns a list or object), which would be helpful given no output schema.
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?
There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the output content, which is sufficient for this parameter-free tool.
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 it provides a public, k-anonymous demand signal including trending searches, most-saved, and most-installed tools. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_tools or search_skills by focusing on aggregated demand data.
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 implies use for retrieving aggregated popularity data but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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 targets a distinct operation: comparing tools, demand signals, collection details, single tool profile, listing collections, and searching. No functional overlap.
Five tools follow verb_noun pattern (compare_tools, get_collection, get_skill, list_collections, search_skills); demand_pulse is a noun phrase but remains clear. Minor deviation but consistent style.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only directory server: core operations (search, list, detail, compare, trends) are covered without bloat.
The tool surface covers all essential query operations: search, list collections, get tool details, compare tools, and demand data. No obvious gaps for its purpose.