Ai Incident Db

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds crucial behavioral details: default model is free Workers AI, Anthropic requires a BYO key, payment goes to Anthropic, and output structure includes per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response, and combined view.

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?

Five sentences with no fluff. Information is front-loaded: purpose in first sentence, usage details follow, return format, then use cases. Each sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no enums, the description covers all necessary information: what, how, parameters, return structure, use cases. It is complete for an AI agent to understand 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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds context beyond schema: default model behavior, the purpose of _apiKey (BYO key, you pay), and how context helps disambiguate. This aids understanding but schema already covers basics.

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's purpose: probe LLMs for entity visibility and score 0-100 per model. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on multi-model probing with scoring.

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 provides clear usage contexts: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch checks, competitive monitoring. It explains when to use the _apiKey parameter and default model. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context such as routing to 4,482 tools, returning structured answers with citations, and being a single fast call, which supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections. It is front-loaded with the most important guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., repeated examples of query types).

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 the tool has 6 parameters (mostly aliases), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and output format (structured answer with citations). It does not discuss error handling or pagination, but the examples and behavioral context are sufficient for most use cases.

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% with each parameter having a description. The description adds value by providing examples of how to phrase the question, listing aliases ('q, prompt, text, input'), and clarifying that it accepts natural language. This goes beyond the schema's basic type info.

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 uses specific verbs ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'Routes the question') and clearly states the tool handles factual questions about current/historical data from authoritative sources. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by specifying when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', lists types of queries it handles, gives example questions, and specifies when to step up to alternatives ('Step up only when needed'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds extra LLM call cost, explicit refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, etc.), and that only tool result is used. No contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, mechanism, usage guidelines. Every sentence is informative, though slightly verbose. Could be trimmed slightly but still concise.

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?

Covers purpose, when to use, behavior, refusal reasons, cost, and even return format despite no output schema. Fully completes the context for a high-stakes read tool.

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% with all parameters documented. Description adds no new semantic value beyond noting aliases, which are already in 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?

Clearly states 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains it picks the right tool, fetches data, and extracts answer only from tool result. Distinguishes from sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by avoiding invention.

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 says when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... must not invent facts' and when not to use: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' Provides clear alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral detail: fan-out process, safety short-circuits, closed market handling, wide spread warnings, and resolution-rule risk. This goes well beyond 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 long but well-structured with sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, etc.) and front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value; minor verbosity is justified by complexity.

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, so description fully explains response shapes: result.market, analysis, evidence, resolver contract, parent event, news fields, safety, and cancellation rules. It covers numerous edge cases, making it very 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?

100% schema coverage. The description adds context for each parameter: market accepts slug/URL/question, depth defaults to thorough, include_raw defaults to false with explanation of when to use true. This enriches 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 the tool researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data, specifying input types (slug, URL, question) and the overall process. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single bet research, with explicit usage guidance like 'should I bet on X'.

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 explicitly lists use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y') and provides examples. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and inclusion of citation URIs. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with example phrases and then details. It is efficient with 5 sentences covering purpose, usage, data sources, and output. Slightly more structured formatting could improve readability, but it is clear and sufficiently concise.

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 the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers data sources, return format (paired data + URIs), and key behavioral aspects. It mentions result sorting and entity count limits. This is adequate for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'values' should be tickers/CIKs for company or drug names, providing examples, and clarifying that 'type' determines the data source. This helps beyond the schema enum.

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 performs 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call'. It uses specific verbs like 'compare' and specifies resource types. It distinguishes from siblings like 'entity_profile' by explicitly preferring this over sequential lookups.

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 provides explicit when-to-use cues with example queries ('which is bigger', 'rank these companies') and states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the context makes it clear that single entity queries should use another tool (entity_profile).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). Description adds execution time (15-60s), return format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, citation, gaps[]), and behavior when topic not in catalog (empty gaps). No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with account info first, then core capability, then usage guidance, then return format. Every sentence adds value although somewhat lengthy. Front-loaded with critical prerequisite.

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 no output schema, description fully covers return format (findings packet with fields), prerequisites (account), limitations (not for breaking news, empty gaps for uncataloged topics), and performance (15-60s). Nothing missing.

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 coverage 100% but description adds value: explains depth enum meanings (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and confirms broad/multi-part questions are acceptable. Could provide more examples but sufficient.

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 performs grounded multi-source research across 1129 structured data sources, distinguishes it from open-web search and singleton tools like ask_pipeworx. Specific verb 'research' and resource 'structured data sources' with explicit scope.

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 provides when-to-use (broad/multi-part questions) and when-not (single lookup → ask_pipeworx; breaking news → ask_pipeworx). Also mentions account requirements and depth tier restrictions. Full usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description discloses that it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas with curated examples, ready to call directly. This adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations (which already indicate readOnly and idempotent).

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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the list of example data domains is slightly redundant. Still efficient for the information conveyed.

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 the discovery-oriented complexity, good annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter nuances. It explains the return format (schemas with examples) sufficiently for an agent to invoke.

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 coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters described). Description adds value by explaining aliases for 'query' (task, q, search, description) and that the output includes schemas and examples. This enriches parameter understanding 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's purpose (find tools by describing data/task), lists specific data domains, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing discovery/browsing rather than specific analysis tasks.

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 advises to call this FIRST when many tools are available to see the option set. Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is clear and context-aware.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description details exact return fields (CIK, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents with sunset note, news fallback, LEI). No contradiction with 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?

Single long paragraph with no bullet points or sections. Every sentence adds value, but structure could be improved for scanability. Adequate but not optimized.

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 complexity (multiple data sources) and no output schema, description covers return fields, data sources, limitations (patents sunset, name not supported), and hints at parallel execution. Missing pagination but annotations suggest open-world behavior.

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?

100% schema coverage, but description adds useful context: clarifies type enum has only 'company', value accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK, and suggests using resolve_entity for names. Adds value 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?

Description explicitly states 'full cross-source profile of a US public company' and provides specific examples like 'Tell me about X'. It distinguishes from chaining multiple lookups and from sibling tools like resolve_entity.

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 says 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' Also warns that names are not supported and directs to use resolve_entity first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about clearing sensitive data, which reinforces destructive nature but doesn't add much beyond 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?

Extremely concise with two sentences. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second gives usage cases. No 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?

For a simple tool (1 param, no output schema, low complexity), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context fully. Complements annotations and schema well.

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 has 100% coverage with one parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'memory by key' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' by naming them.

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 states when to use: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. Also mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', providing clear guidance on alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds context about fetching the page and outputting a single text blob, which is consistent and provides additional behavioral insight beyond the 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 concise, with the main action front-loaded. It uses three short sentences covering purpose, functionality, and use cases without 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?

For a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the output format (single text blob) and use cases adequately. It could mention the exact output format but the standard llms.txt is well-known.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (url and max_links). The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 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 generates an llms.txt file for a given URL, specifying the verb 'generate' and the resource 'llms.txt file'. It also mentions the purpose (AI crawlers indexing) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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 explicitly lists use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor visibility. It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the exact return fields (title, date, description, parties, and URLs), which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and includes specific return details. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding.

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 the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'has output schema: true') and full schema parameter coverage, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'incident_id' is well-described in the schema. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('full AI Incident Database record') with clear scope (by numeric incident_id). It explicitly lists the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_incidents' which perform broader searches.

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 clearly implies usage when an incident_id is known, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'search_incidents'. However, for a simple fetch operation the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds the ordering by recency but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

Extremely concise single-sentence description, immediately front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description provides enough context. Annotations fill in behavioral details, so no gaps remain.

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% for the single parameter limit, which is described as '1-50 (default 10)'. Description adds no further clarification beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists the most recently added incidents, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_incidents or get_incident by focusing on recency.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_incidents or get_incident. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by listing return fields and the optional include_inactive parameter. No contradictions. Adds behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences: first states what it does and returns, second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable. No redundancy, efficiently structured.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and usage. It could mention pagination or limits, but not strictly necessary given context. Parameter is well-documented in 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'include_inactive'. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields (id, type, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by mentioning usage for reviewing monitoring and finding an id to cancel.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about purpose and examples but does not disclose behavioral traits like potential incompleteness (openWorldHint) or output format.

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 concise sentence that directly states purpose and context with no unnecessary words. It is well front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema), the description adequately explains what taxonomies are and their purpose. It could mention that the output is a list but is sufficient.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 title 'List Taxonomies' and description clearly state the tool returns taxonomies used to classify incidents. It is highly specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on incidents, research, or subscriptions.

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 context (to get classification taxonomies) but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. However, no sibling tool directly competes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, doesn't count against tool-call quota, team reads digests daily, and signal affects roadmap. No annotation contradictions.

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?

Highly concise: three sentences (after the title restatement) with no wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose, then conditions, then constraints. Every sentence 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what happens after sending (team reads, roadmap impact) and covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, constraints, and behavioral traits. Complete for a simple feedback tool.

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 value by explaining enum options and providing guidance on message content (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), justifying a 4.

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 sends feedback to Pipeworx team, defines types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) with specific meanings, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (none are feedback-related).

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 states when to use: for bugs (wrong/stale data), missing tools (feature/data_gap), or praise. Also says what not to do: avoid pasting end-user prompts, and provides guidance on describing issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: self-aggregating signal, no PII, and caching (5min-1h). No contradiction with 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 concise, front-loading the main function and output, then listing three use cases, and finally providing meta information about caching and privacy. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the output (top tools, packs, volume) and how it's derived. With only one optional parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers all necessary context for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear enum and description. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the trade-offs between window lengths ('shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand').

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 top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a chosen window, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like discover_tools by focusing on trending data rather than catalog discovery.

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 provides three explicit use cases, guiding when to use this tool (e.g., discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, aligning use cases). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds rich behavioral context: parameter requirements, algorithmic logic (Jaccard similarity, placeholder filtering), response structure, and fill check integration. No contradictions.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes value. It is front-loaded with key requirement and usage guidance. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.

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?

Covers modes, algorithmic details, response fields, edge cases (placeholders, similarity), and integration with polymarket_fill_risk. Missing explicit error handling or rate limits, but overall comprehensive for a complex tool.

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?

Both parameters are well-described in the schema and the description adds significant meaning: explains modal behavior, provides example values, and clarifies how each parameter affects the algorithm. Schema coverage is 100%, but description elevates understanding.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between single-event (event) and cross-event (topic) modes, providing specific use cases and examples. This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_fill_risk and polymarket_edges.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use event vs topic mode, with examples and a warning that calling with no args fails. It also hints at not trading if fill check returns non-positive. However, it doesn't directly contrast with alternative tools beyond mentioning polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description details caching (1h), response segments, filter effects, and Fed bet exclusion, providing comprehensive behavioral context without contradicting 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 front-loaded with purpose and well-structured into segments, knobs, and diagnostics. While lengthy, every section adds value without redundancy, though some sentences could be trimmed.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all aspects: purpose, three model families, response top-level, per-opportunity fields, tradeable-edge knobs, caching, and diagnostics. It provides complete guidance for agent invocation.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds contextual details (e.g., Polymarket fee structure for slippage_pp, why min_kelly doesn't filter partitions) that enhance understanding 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 the tool scans top Polymarket markets to return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx's edge detection.

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?

It explicitly targets 'what should I bet on today' and explains when to adjust parameters like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp, but does not directly compare to sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage, leaving some guidance implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description provides rich behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the returned structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), data source (snapshots from polymarket_edges), and limitations (60-day TTL, no intraday data). Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; description adds context about gaps and computation. No contradiction.

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 dense but well-organized, starting with purpose, then describing the response structure, and ending with limits. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff. It could be slightly more succinct, but it earns its length.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and key metrics (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days). It also addresses data gaps and history bounds, making the tool's behavior fully comprehensible.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (days, window). The description adds defaults and a max constraint (max 30) that aligns with the schema's clamp (2-30). This adds marginal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' which likely provides current edges only.

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 gives a clear when-to-use context by contrasting a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old one. It implies that for current edges, one should use polymarket_edges. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond the sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds detailed behavioral context: walks the ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict), and for baskets includes forced_directional_risk and thin_legs. This goes well beyond annotations, enhancing 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 well-structured with bold headings and clear sections for each mode. It is somewhat lengthy but dense with valuable information—every sentence serves a purpose. Minor deduction for verbosity, but it remains focused and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (two modes, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates all return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.) and explains key concepts like forced_directional_risk and thin legs. No gaps remain for an agent to infer.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that exactly one of market or event is required, clarifies how size_usd is interpreted differently in each mode (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and details the side default logic for baskets. This helps the agent understand complex parameter interactions.

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's purpose as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth. It distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and explicitly contrasts with siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use this tool before acting on their signals.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the conditions for each mode, when not to rely on theoretical edge, and warns about the dominant loss mode (partial basket fills).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) by explaining response structure, safety fields, and conditions that make spreads invalid (e.g., compatibility_warning, temporal alignment). It discloses behavioral traits like skipped comparisons and warns that pre-mapped does not imply tradeability. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, modes, response, safety fields) and front-loads the key purpose. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the response format (leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp) and safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). It covers how to interpret results and edge cases, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the two modes and how explicit parameters override the topic mapping, plus listing example topics. This provides context beyond the schema but does not add substantial new meaning for each parameter.

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's purpose as computing the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket. It specifies the verb+resource (compute spread) and distinguishes between two modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool over alternatives.

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 provides detailed usage guidance, including two modes (topic and explicit) and safety fields that indicate when spreads are meaningful. It warns that many pre-mapped topics may return compatibility warnings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it with other tools like polymarket_arbitrage, missing clear exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description adds context beyond annotations (e.g., scoping to identifier, dual behavior of omitting key). Does not contradict readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys action, use cases, scope, and relationships.

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?

Covers essential aspects for a simple tool. Minor gap: no explicit mention of return format, but description implies result type (value or list of keys).

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description explains purpose of 'key' and the effect of omission, adding 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?

Clearly states verb (retrieve/list), resource (saved values/keys), and differentiates from sibling tools 'remember' and 'forget'. Includes specific use-case examples.

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 explains when to use (look up stored context) and implies when not (re-deriving from scratch). Mentions scoping and pairing with remember/forget.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=true, but the description states mark_read:true flags events as read, implying state mutation. This directly contradicts the annotation, so score is 1 as per rule.

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 paragraph of 5 sentences, efficient and front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but no unnecessary 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?

Covers return schema, filtering, polling, and alternative access. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits, and no output schema, but annotations provide safety context.

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 already describes all 5 parameters, but description adds return field details (source, citation_uri, payload) and contextualizes mark_read and unread_only. This enriches understanding 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 it pulls fired events from a subscription feed, specifying the resource (alerts) and action (pull most recent). It distinguishes from siblings like list_recent by mentioning it's for the subscription feed and comes from evaluator writes.

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?

Provides context on polling and an alternative access method (direct URL). Mentions filtering by type and since, and mark_read behavior. No explicit exclusions, but enough guidance for typical use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about fan-out to multiple sources, rate-limit fallback, and a soft-fail condition for USPTO, which are valuable details beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with example queries and is well-structured. While it is longer than necessary, each sentence adds value (purpose, sources, parameter details, sibling distinction). Could be slightly trimmed but not wasteful.

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 3 required parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and moderate complexity (multiple sources, fallback), the description covers purpose, sources, parameter details, and distinguishes from sibling. It mentions the return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs) adequately, though pagination details are missing.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains 'since' accepts both ISO dates and relative shorthands with examples, 'value' can be ticker or CIK, and 'type' is limited to 'company'. Usage guidance like '30d' for monitoring further aids selection.

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 a change feed for a company over a time window, with example queries and a list of data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile' which returns static profiles.

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 provides explicit usage examples and conditions, and names 'entity_profile' as an alternative for static profile queries. It explains fallback behavior but does not exhaustively cover all sibling comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description explains storage scoping and retention periods. No contradictions with 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?

Concise, front-loaded description with no wasted words. Each sentence provides useful information.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, storage behavior, and pairing with other tools. Fully 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 already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by suggesting naming conventions and content types for the values.

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 saves data for later reuse, with specific examples of what to save. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall and forget.

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 states when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and provides context about persistence differences between anonymous and authenticated sessions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, mention of specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, RxNorm), and citation URIs, which helps agents understand the tool's operation beyond the annotation hints.

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 well-structured with a lead-in using example queries, followed by purpose, supported types, and detailed output information. While somewhat lengthy, each sentence adds value and no information is superfluous.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns for each entity type (ticker, CIK, company name, citation URI for companies; RxCUI, ingredient, brand, citation for drugs). It also mentions auto-disambiguation and the tool's efficiency, providing a complete picture for agent decision-making.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds concrete examples ('AAPL', '0000320193', 'ozempic') and clarifies accepted input formats for each type, including auto-disambiguation for companies. This goes beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 resolves user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers for company and drug entities. It gives concrete example queries and explicitly differentiates its purpose from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 explicitly advises 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' establishing a clear usage context. It also lists supported entity types and their outputs, indicating when to choose this tool over alternatives. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance for edge cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety profile. The description adds behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with metrics. No contradictions.

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 plus a parenthetical example. Every clause adds value. Front-loaded with the main action and purpose. No 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers the probe process, ranking logic, and the subject/competitor distinction, making it complete for an AI agent to understand and use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the first entity is treated as 'subject' for narrative and rest as competitors, and that omitting models defaults to workers-ai.

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 uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'Probes', 'ranks', 'surfaces') and clearly identifies the resource ('AI visibility across multiple entities'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check by focusing on side-by-side comparison and ranking.

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 explicitly states usefulness for competitive AI-marketing audits and provides an example question. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context makes it clear this is for multi-entity comparison, implying ai_visibility_check for single entities.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: latency details (bundlephobia first measurement 5-30s), partial failure mode (sources_failed lists timeouts, rest returns), and return structure details (summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions). No contradictions with 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 informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is longer than minimal but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but given the complexity of a composite tool, the length is justified. No unnecessary repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (composite of two APIs), 100% schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, ecosystem constraints, return fields, and failure behavior. No output schema, but description lists return fields adequately. Complete for effective agent usage.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides for 'package' and 'version' parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's a composite check for deciding whether to add an npm package, fanning out across deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the exact verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting the npm ecosystem scope and that other ecosystems fall under a different tool.

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 states when to use: 'whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me''. Also specifies when not to use: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'. Provides clear context and exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, establishing safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (IDs, titles, dates, blurb) and the combined filtering behavior. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately state the filtering and return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the return value semantics. It mentions the key fields and the combined free-text/date filtering. Could hint at pagination or result ordering, but overall sufficient for a search tool with good annotations.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description's mention of 'free-text' and 'date range filters' does not add new detail per parameter. It provides helpful grouping but no novel semantics beyond the schema; baseline of 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 searches the AI Incident Database with free-text and date range filters, and lists the returned fields. It uses a specific verb and resource, and though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_within' or 'get_incident', the purpose is unambiguous.

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 via the search and filter capabilities but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_incident' or 'deep_research'. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use information is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: embedding model (BGE-base-en), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), character limit (200K chars with truncation flag), return format (passages with offsets and similarity scores). No contradiction with 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?

Two concise paragraphs front-loaded with key information. First sentence states core functionality. Second paragraph adds technical specifics that are valuable but not distracting. Every sentence contributes meaning—no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores). It also covers key constraints (200K char cap, truncation flag) and usage pattern (pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded). Minor omissions: no mention of error handling or behavior on malformed input.

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 coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters described). The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains the 'text' parameter's purpose as a fetched record, provides example queries for 'query', and clarifies the default and range for 'limit'. Also mentions the return includes offsets and scores, which isn't in params.

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's purpose: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it works on already-fetched text and pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, aligning with the 'search within' name.

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 states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. Provides a clear alternative: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' Also gives example queries to guide usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: requires OAuth, delivery channel constraints (SMS cap, webhook signing), and that the feed is always on. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, but the description does not clarify idempotency behavior. No contradictions with 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 concise for the amount of information, with clear front-loading of the main purpose. It is slightly long but every sentence provides value (examples, constraints). Could be broken into bullet points for readability, but not a major issue.

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 the tool complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, sibling tools), the description covers types, delivery channels, constraints, and return value (subscription ID). It does not explicitly describe error cases or full behavior for all types, but is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description significantly adds meaning with concrete examples for each type (e.g., sec_8k with items, fred_series with series_id) and constraints (phone verification, 10/day cap). This enriches the schema beyond basic descriptions.

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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns the new subscription ID. It uses specific verbs ("create") and resource ("subscription"), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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 explicitly mentions when to use (setting up proactive monitoring), lists supported types with examples, and provides prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account; anonymous+BYO cannot persist). It also notes delivery caps (SMS 10/day). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare to alternatives like list_subscriptions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns example questions with live catalog information, which builds trust without contradicting 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 detailed but front-loaded with common user phrases, making it scannable. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing key information.

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 adequately explains the output format (category-bucketed questions with tool+argument shape). It also provides sufficient context for its use case among many siblings.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'topic' parameter. The description adds value by listing example topic values and explaining the behavior when omitted, exceeding the schema's brief description.

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 identifies 'suggest_questions' as the onboarding entry point, specifying it returns category-bucketed example questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' by focusing on discovery and examples.

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 states to use this tool first when the agent doesn't know what Pipeworx can do, and to learn how to call meta-tools. It also explains when to use the optional 'topic' parameter vs. omitting it for a full spread.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains the non-destructive nature ('deactivated not deleted') and availability of historical events via 'recent_alerts', adding value beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded action and essential details, no extraneous information.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's effect, side effects, and integration with other tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal new meaning, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action ('Cancel a subscription') and the resource ('by id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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?

It provides context on ownership ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), guiding when the tool is applicable, though it does not explicitly list alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description thoroughly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it returns a verdict with specific categories (confirmed, approximately_correct, refuted, inconclusive, unsupported), includes extracted structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta. It also specifies the data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL). No contradiction with 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 concise yet comprehensive, starting with natural-language trigger phrases and ending with the benefits of replacing multiple calls. Each sentence adds value, though the description is slightly longer than necessary for a single-parameter tool.

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 the tool's complexity (natural-language claim verification with multiple possible outputs), the description is complete. It explains the input, output format, data source, and use case. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers expected return values.

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 100% coverage for the single 'claim' parameter, providing a clear description and example. The tool description adds example phrases but does not significantly augment the schema's meaning. Baseline score of 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 explicitly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples ('Is it true that...', 'fact check') and a clear domain (company-financial claims for US public companies). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its unique function, replacing multiple sequential calls.

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 directly advises when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also specifies the supported claim type (company-financial). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.