Recently-submitted papers in an arXiv category. Use for daily catch-up on a research area. E.g. category='cs.AI' for new AI papers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | Yes | arXiv category code. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'recently-submitted' which implies a reading operation, but lacks details on recency, pagination, or ordering. The description is minimally transparent about behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Example is efficient.
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?
No output schema and no description of return format. For a simple digest tool, it may be adequate, but it lacks information on what fields are returned (titles, authors, etc.). Completeness is moderate.
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 50% description coverage (only category has a description). The description adds an example for category but does not clarify the 'limit' parameter. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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 retrieves recently-submitted papers for an arXiv category, with an example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arxiv_search (search) and arxiv_get_paper (specific paper) by focusing on daily catch-up for a category.
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?
Explicitly suggests usage for 'daily catch-up on a research area', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the example and sibling names imply the appropriate scope.
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: daily digest for recent papers, get single paper by ID, and search by query. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools are prefixed with 'arxiv_' for consistency. However, 'daily_digest' uses noun_noun, while 'get_paper' and 'search' use verb_noun and verb respectively, showing minor inconsistency.
Three tools is well-scoped for an arXiv server, covering the core needs of searching, retrieving details, and daily discovery without unnecessary complexity.
Covers essential arXiv operations (search, fetch, daily digest). Missing features like category listing or user library, but these are not critical for basic access.