Alienvault Otx

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds key behavioral details: the default free Workers AI model, the BYO key for Anthropic, and the return structure (per-model fields + combined view). 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 concise (two sentences) yet packs all necessary information: purpose, default behavior, optional parameters explanation, and output summary. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with descriptions. The description explains return values despite no output schema. Use cases are provided. Complete for the tool's 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% (baseline 3). The description adds meaningful context: default model, purpose of `_apiKey` (direct Anthropic billing), and `context` (disambiguation). This exceeds schema alone.

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 action ('Probe one or more LLMs'), the target (business/brand/product/topic), and the output (visibility score 0-100 per model). It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by being more general.

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 ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains when to use optional parameters like `_apiKey` and `models`. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is otherwise clear.

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?

No annotations provided; description mentions it picks tools and fills arguments but does not disclose failure modes, latency, or permission requirements. It carries the burden of transparency but falls short.

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 concise (2-3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, followed by examples. 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 Q&A tool, the description covers purpose and usage well. Lacks output format specification, but the output is intuitive. No output schema exists, so this is acceptable.

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?

Only one parameter 'question' with schema covering 100%; description provides example questions that clarify expected input format beyond schema, adding value.

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 it answers questions in plain English by selecting the best data source and filling arguments. It distinguishes from siblings by being a general-purpose abstraction over tool selection.

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?

Description implies usage for any natural language question and says 'no need to browse tools,' but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives. Lacks exclusionary 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: market resolution, bet classification, intelligent fan-out to packs with examples (crypto+fred+gdelt), and output format. 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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence provides value. It efficiently conveys purpose, input options, behavior, and output. Could be slightly more structured with breaks, but it's not verbose.

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 fully describes the return: an evidence packet plus market-vs-model comparison. Inputs, behavior, and outcome are all covered. For a 2-parameter tool with no nested objects, this is complete and self-contained.

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% (both market and depth described). The description adds meaning beyond schemas: explains three input formats for market (slug, URL, question text) and clarifies depth options with default (thorough). This enhances agent 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's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet' by pulling Pipeworx data. It specifies the resource (Polymarket bet), action (research), and outcome (evidence packet + comparison). This distinguishes it from general query tools like ask_pipeworx or validate_claim.

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 use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X?", "what does the data say about this Polymarket market?", or "is there edge in this bet?". It also positions this as the core demo product, implying it's preferred over manual discovery. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return data types (paired data, resource URIs) and entity-specific metrics, but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions, or side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, type-specific details, and benefit.

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 adequately covers return structure (paired data, URIs) and entity-specific fields. Minor gap: no example of paired data format.

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 good descriptions; the description adds value by explaining what each parameter means in context (e.g., tickers/CIKs for company, drug names for drug) and the expected count range.

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 action ('Compare 2–5 entities side by side'), specifies the resources (company/drug with specific metrics), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces 8–15 sequential agent 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?

It clearly indicates when to use (comparing multiple entities efficiently) and implies an alternative (sequential calls), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action and output but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects. The behavioral description is adequate but could be more specific about safety.

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: the first defines the primary function, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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?

The description gives sufficient context for a search tool, including its primary use case (discovery when many tools are available). It lacks details about result ordering or pagination, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, meaning both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds little beyond emphasizing that the query is a 'natural language description,' which the schema already states. 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'tool catalog', and specifies that it returns 'the most relevant tools with names and descriptions.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing to call this FIRST, which clarifies its role as a discovery 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 says 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the return format (pipeworx:// URIs) and hints at potential slowness for federal contracts, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when data is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and concise. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., list of data sources), but it contains no unnecessary words and every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool aggregates multiple data sources and has no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (URIs, data types) and mentions a limitation. However, it lacks details on overall result structure, error handling (e.g., entity not found), and whether all listed data are always present.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions, the description adds value by clarifying accepted formats for the value parameter (ticker or CIK) and explicitly stating that names are not supported, directing users to resolve_entity. This goes beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a full entity profile across multiple Pipeworx packs, lists the specific data sources (SEC, XBRL, patents, news, LEI), and distinguishes itself from sequential calls and the sibling tool for federal contracts.

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 when to use this tool (for a comprehensive entity profile) and when not to (for federal contracts, use usa_recipient_profile directly). It also implies it's more efficient than 10–15 sequential calls.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete' which indicates a destructive action, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., permanence, error handling if key not found, or any consequences). The minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential information without any wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, for a destructive action, additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the key is missing) would improve completeness. Minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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, providing baseline. The description's 'Memory key to delete' aligns with the schema's description and adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 'Delete a stored memory by key' clearly states the verb (delete), resource (stored memory), and the means (by key). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'remember' (store) and 'recall' (retrieve), which are present in the same server.

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 use when deleting a memory by key but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. The context of siblings provides some implicit guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: it fetches the page, extracts key info, and emits a standard markdown text blob ready for site-root drop. This fully aligns with and complements the annotations, revealing the tool's behavior beyond structured fields.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: purpose, process, then use cases. Front-loaded with the essential action. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers input, process, output, and usage. It does not mention error handling for invalid URLs, but annotations for idempotent/read-only mitigate concerns. Still, a minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 both parameters are well-described in the input schema. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Full URL...' and default/max values). 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 starts with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('llms.txt file for any URL'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' or unrelated tools. The purpose is explicit and 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 lists three concrete use cases ('getting a client's site indexed by AI', 'drafting llms.txt for your own project', 'auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor'), guiding when to use the tool. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, but the use cases are sufficient for most scenarios.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It describes the returned data but omits error handling, authentication, or rate limits. For a read-only fetch, this is basic but insufficient without 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and lists key contents. No extraneous 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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields comprehensively. However, it lacks details on error conditions or permissions, which are important for a complete understanding.

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 single parameter 'pulse_id' is documented in the schema as a hex string. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3.

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 fetches a single OTX pulse and lists specific fields returned (references, indicators, etc.), distinguishing it from 'search_pulses' which is for searching/filtering.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a specific pulse_id, and the sibling 'search_pulses' provides an alternative for searching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-detection of type when omitted, which is helpful, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needed, rate limits, pagination, or the format of 'observed-context fields'. These gaps hinder the agent's ability to anticipate side effects or constraints.

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 no superfluous information. The first sentence conveys the purpose and return, the second adds an important behavioral note. Every word 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description mentions 'pulses referencing the indicator and observed-context fields', but does not detail the structure of the return value (e.g., fields, pagination). Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, one enum), the description is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand response format.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds one behavioral nuance: 'type auto-detected when omitted', which provides additional context for the 'type' parameter. However, this is a minor addition; the description does not significantly 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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'indicator', specifying types (IPv4, domain, URL, file hash) and the context (OTX). It also mentions return value (pulses and observed-context). Does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_pulses or get_pulse, but 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., search_pulses, get_pulse). The description implies usage for looking up indicators but does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the task context.

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 rate limit (5/day) and states it's free. Mentions not to include user prompt verbatim. No annotations exist, so description carries burden; sufficient for a feedback tool.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, then guidance, then constraints. No fluff, every 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?

Covers purpose, usage context, and constraints (rate limit, content rules). No output schema, but return value is likely trivial. Adequate 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?

100% schema coverage means parameters are well-described in schema. Description adds usage recommendations (be specific, 1-2 sentences) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning 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 'Send feedback to the Pipeworx team' with specific use cases (bug reports, feature requests, missing data, praise), differentiating it from siblings like ask_pipeworx.

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 (feedback types) and provides content guidance (describe tools/data, avoid user prompt verbatim). Lacks explicit exclusion or alternative descriptions but 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant context: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, caching (5min-1h), and the self-aggregating nature. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured use cases and technical details. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence provides useful information without 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned (top tools, packs, volume), use cases, data source, caching, and privacy characteristics, covering all necessary 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 coverage is 100% with enum description. The description adds value by explaining the tradeoff between window lengths (hot vs steady-state), going beyond the schema's basic enumeration.

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 function: returning top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. It uses a specific verb ('calling') and resource ('Pipeworx trending data'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' or 'get_pulse'.

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 three concrete use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choice, seeing alignment) and explains window selection tradeoffs. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, the use cases are sufficiently directive for an AI 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it walks child markets, extracts dates/thresholds, sorts them, and reports violations. This goes 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains necessary details. It is somewhat lengthy but efficient for the complexity of the tool. Every 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 the simplicity of the input (one parameter fully covered by schema) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the tool's behavior, logic, and return format. It is complete for the 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'event' is already described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding arbitrage opportunities in Polymarket events by checking monotonicity violations of prices across date/threshold markets. It specifies the verb 'find' and the resource 'arbitrage opportunities within a Polymarket event', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique function.

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 explains when to use the tool (for events with multiple date/threshold markets where monotonicity should hold) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: V1 covers crypto-price bets, uses lognormal model from FRED, groups by asset, fetches price history once, computes model probability per market, ranks by |edge|. 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and explains the model, grouping, ranking, and use case. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value; 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?

No output schema, but the description indicates returns top N ranked by edge magnitude with suggested trade direction, which is sufficient. No mention of error cases or rate limits, but given the moderate complexity and annotations, the description is fairly 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, window, min_edge_pp). The description adds context beyond schema by explaining defaults and usage (e.g., 'Top N edges to return after ranking'), justifying a score above baseline 3.

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: scanning high-volume Polymarket markets, computing edges using Pipeworx data, and returning top opportunities ranked by edge magnitude. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bet_research or polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on edge detection for daily betting decisions.

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 it is built for the 'what should I bet on today' question and avoids paging through hundreds of markets. It implies when to use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or 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, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds valuable context on return structure (leg-by-leg prices, spread computation). No contradictions. Could mention data freshness limitations but not required.

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, then modes. A few extra words (e.g., 'that delta is a real arb signal') are acceptable but not essential. Could be slightly tighter.

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 adequately describes return format (prices, spread). Provides enough detail for an agent to understand usage. Sibling tools are distinct, no missing 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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds meaning by explaining the two modes and how parameters override topic-mapped sides, going 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?

Clearly states the tool compares cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket, specifying it fetches prices and calculates spread. Differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on these two specific venues.

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?

Describes two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit pairing) with examples, providing clear guidance on when to use each. Implicitly suggests using when arb opportunities are suspected, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It identifies the tool as a read operation (retrieves memories) and states it works across sessions. However, it does not discuss potential limitations like memory size, persistence guarantees, or whether retrieval affects state (e.g., last access time). The description is truthful 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?

The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. The key action and two usage modes are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It mentions session persistence. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or behavior when key doesn't exist, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 one parameter 'key' with a description already. The tool description adds value by explaining that omitting the key lists all memories and that memories persist across sessions. This goes beyond the schema to give the agent usage context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve' or 'list') and the resource ('stored memory'). It distinguishes between retrieving a specific key and listing all, and the tool's function is distinct from sibling tools like 'remember' 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?

The description explicitly explains when to omit the key (to list all) and when to provide it (to retrieve a specific memory). It also mentions the context of use ('context you saved earlier'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the distinction from siblings is clear.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses fan-out behavior, accepted date formats, and return structure. Does not mention side effects or safety, but tool is read-only.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, each sentence adds value. No wasteful content.

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 format and usage scenarios. Lacks details on error handling, pagination, or result limits, but sufficient for typical use given sibling 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining relative date support and providing examples, and noting that type only supports 'company'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'brief me on what happened with X' and the resource 'entity changes over time', and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying fan-out to multiple sources.

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 use cases: 'brief me on what happened with X' and change-monitoring workflows. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but context is clear.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses persistence behavior: authenticated users get persistent memory, anonymous sessions last 24 hours. No mention of destructive behavior, but it's a safe write operation.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: first defines action, second gives use cases, third adds persistence details. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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?

Given no output schema and low complexity, description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral notes sufficiently for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters. Description adds value by suggesting key naming conventions (e.g., 'subject_property') and noting that value can be any text, beyond what schema 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'store' and the resource 'key-value pair in your session memory'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'forget' and 'recall' by focusing on the write operation.

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: saving intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls. It also notes persistence differences based on authentication, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the mapping and return of IDs and URIs, but lacks details on error handling, ambiguous inputs, or performance implications.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every 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 no output schema, the description adequately summarizes return values (IDs and URIs). It could mention possible failure modes, but overall it is complete for the tool's 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the mapping for each entity type (SEC EDGAR, RxCUI) beyond the schema's short descriptions, aiding correct parameter usage.

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 entities to canonical IDs for company and drug types, specifying the target identities (SEC EDGAR, RxCUI). It distinguishes from siblings like lookup_indicator by stating it replaces multiple lookup 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?

Describes supported entity types and that it replaces 2-3 lookup calls, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among 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 (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safety. Description adds details: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. 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?

Three sentences pack core action, process/use case, and output format with no redundancy. Front-loaded with main 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?

For a tool with 4 params, no output schema, and moderate complexity, description covers behavior, output details, and use case. Explains internal call to ai_visibility_check, which adds completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining 'first entry treated as subject' and condition for _apiKey, which goes beyond schema 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?

Clearly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side', specifying verb, resource, and scope. Distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by mentioning it internally, and from 'compare_entities' by specific focus on AI visibility.

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 describes use case for competitive AI-marketing audits with an example. Does not explicitly state when not to use or point to alternatives like ai_visibility_check for single entities, though context is clear.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists return fields but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 purpose, second lists return fields. No wasted words and front-loaded with key action.

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?

The description lists return fields, compensating for lack of output schema. However, it could mention behavior for no results or pagination details beyond schema defaults.

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 already has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description only adds the keyword context, providing no extra meaning 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 'Search OTX threat-intel pulses by keyword' and lists specific return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like get_pulse (single pulse by ID) and lookup_indicator (indicator lookup).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when searching by keyword but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for other search types.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the tool's behavior: supported sources (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), return values (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta). It does not explicitly mention limitations (e.g., only US public companies, only specific financial metrics), which would enhance 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable details without redundancy. Every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the supported domains, the return values, and the benefit over alternative approaches.

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 single parameter 'claim' has full schema coverage with a description and examples. The tool description adds context on how the claim is processed and what results to expect, which goes beyond the schema's basic 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 states the tool's purpose: fact-check a natural-language claim against authoritative sources. It specifies supported claim types (company-financial for US public companies) and describes the return values (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, delta). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_indicator or compare_entities, which have different purposes.

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 when to use the tool by stating it replaces 4–6 sequential agent calls, indicating it is a consolidated alternative. It also specifies supported claim types (company-financial). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools for unsupported claim types.

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