Search arXiv preprints by free-text query, author, and/or category (e.g. 'cs.AI', 'stat.ML', 'q-fin.MF'). Returns up to 100 papers with title, abstract, authors, categories, publication date, DOI when available, PDF URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Free-text search across all fields. | |
| author | No | Author name; quoted internally for exact match. | |
| sort_by | No | lastUpdatedDate | |
| category | No | arXiv category code, e.g. 'cs.AI'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that the tool returns up to 100 papers with specific fields, implying read-only behavior, but does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or other traits beyond obvious search semantics.
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?
Single sentence with clear front-loading of purpose, followed by result details. No fluff, every part earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values (title, abstract, authors, categories, date, DOI, PDF URL). It also describes key parameters and gives category examples. However, it omits explanation of sort_by and limit behavior, which are present in the schema but not elaborated.
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 60% (query, author, category have descriptions). The free-text description adds category examples and notes 'quoted internally for exact match' for author, but does not elaborate on limit or sort_by. Thus 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?
Description clearly states the tool searches arXiv preprints by free-text query, author, and/or category, and returns up to 100 papers with specific fields. This distinguishes it from siblings arxiv_daily_digest and arxiv_get_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 implies usage for targeted search via multiple parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions.
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.