unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds key behaviors: ownership enforcement, row deactivation (not deletion), and that historical events remain available via recent_alerts. 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 with zero waste. Every word serves a purpose: action, constraint, behavior, and side-effect.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, constraints, and effects completely, including mention of related tool 'recent_alerts' for historical data.
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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'id' (type, required, description). The description does not add additional parameter context, 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 action ('Cancel a subscription by id'), specifies the resource (subscription), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by mentioning ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior.
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 ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), which guides usage. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the tool's purpose is clear and distinct from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants (beta currently identical), and the set includes five-plus prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) with fuzzy boundaries. Long descriptions help, but an agent selecting among them would frequently struggle to pick the right one.
Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_first names (search_samples, validate_claim, resolve_entity) mix with noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage) and bare imperatives (remember, recall, forget, subscribe). It is readable, but there is no predictable verb_noun convention across the set.
33 tools is well over the coherent range, and the count is especially inflated because the server is named Biosamples yet only two tools (search_samples, get_sample) actually belong to that domain. The remaining 31 tools are an unrelated mix of Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities, including redundant variants.
For the stated Biosamples purpose, only search and retrieve exist—no submission, update, or batch operations—so the domain surface is a read-only fragment. For the broader accidental scope of the other tools, the set is a grab bag with no coherent lifecycle, leaving significant gaps regardless of which domain is considered primary.