FREE. Check a subscription by its sub_ref (HSHSUB-XXXXXXXXXX): what it's watching, status, and match criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sub_ref | Yes | The subscription reference, e.g. HSHSUB-A1B2C3D4E5 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states the basic purpose and return fields, without disclosing side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. Minimal transparency.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with 'FREE', and efficiently covers purpose, input format, and return fields without wasted words.
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 explains return values (watching, status, match criteria) and input format. Lacks examples or error handling, but for a simple check tool with one param, it is mostly complete.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the format hint '(HSHSUB-XXXXXXXXXX)' and the schema includes an example. No further semantics added beyond 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 the verb 'Check' and the resource 'subscription', and specifies what it returns: 'what it's watching, status, and match criteria'. It distinguishes from siblings like hsh_check_order or hsh_check_quote.
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 checking a subscription via sub_ref but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it, nor mention alternatives. The 'FREE' tag might hint at cost but not usage context.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some closely related tools (e.g., hsh-b2b-*, hsh-esg-* variants) could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still misselect similar products.
Naming convention is mixed: some tools use hyphens (hsh-b2b-contact), others use underscores (hsh_broker_data_request). While mostly readable, the inconsistency could be confusing for agents expecting a uniform pattern.
32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but given its purpose as a data marketplace, the large number reflects a wide catalog. However, it may be overwhelming for agents to navigate.
Covers many data domains but has obvious gaps (e.g., weather, social media). The inclusion of custom data request tools (hsh_describe_data_need, hsh_broker_data_request) mitigates these gaps, allowing agents to request missing data.
