The state of a report you filed via send_feedback, by its feedbackId: filed, working, or resolved — with its work-order reference. A report filed in the last few hours may still read 'filed'; the response states where it is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feedbackId | Yes | The feedbackId returned by send_feedback |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the possible status values, the inclusion of a work-order reference, and the fact that recent reports may still show 'filed'. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond just saying 'get status'.
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 the core function, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the status values and a relevant caveat.
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?
Given a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the status set, the work-order reference, and a timing nuance. This is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 feedbackId as the value returned by send_feedback (100% coverage). The description adds no new format or syntax details, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns the state of a report filed via send_feedback, listing the possible statuses (filed, working, resolved) and mentioning the work-order reference. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing specifically on feedback status.
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 usage when a feedbackId from send_feedback is available, and provides a temporal caveat about recent reports potentially still reading 'filed'. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools.
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 function: ask is async event queries, get_answer retrieves results, get_signals and top_accelerating provide different signal views, get_entity and search_entities cover entity details and search, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly separate them.
The majority of tools follow a 'get_' prefix for retrieval (13 of 21) and other clear verbs like 'ask', 'create_order', 'propose_topic', 'send_feedback'. A few use noun phrases like 'todays_brief' and 'top_accelerating', which breaks the pattern slightly but are still intuitive. Overall consistent and predictable.
21 tools cover the full scope of the server: exploration, querying, ordering, account management, feedback, and data records. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface covers all major workflows: browsing signals, asking questions, getting detailed reports, ordering, providing feedback, and proposing new topics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to cancel an order or manage watched topics directly), but core operations are present and agents can handle the domain effectively.
