list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count) and clarifying that by default only active subscriptions are listed. 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and return fields, then give concrete usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it states the purpose, return format, default behavior (active only), and specific use cases. The sibling tools (subscribe/unsubscribe) make the context clear, and the annotations cover safety semantics, so the description fills the remaining gap effectively.
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 only parameter include_inactive, with a clear description already in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about this parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the caller's active subscriptions') and enumerates the return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by explicitly focusing on reviewing active subscriptions and finding IDs 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 tells the user when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implies when not to use it (e.g., for subscribing or unsubscribing) and names the alternative actions, making the usage context clear.
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.
The major clusters are distinct (blockchain explorer, memory, subscriptions), but several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, the three ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research all route questions, and the five Polymarket tools overlap heavily on edge detection. An agent would struggle to pick the right query tool or prediction-market tool without reading very long descriptions.
Naming is a mix of single-word nouns (address, block, node, transaction, stats), verb-noun snake_case (validate_claim, generate_llms_txt), and noun-phrase snake_case (entity_profile, bet_research), with no consistent style or verb convention. There is no predictable pattern an agent can generalize from.
36 tools is well above the comfortable range, and most are meta-tools for Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and subscriptions rather than Blockchair blockchain functionality. A large share of the count is redundant query and edge-analysis variants, so the size adds confusion rather than capability.
As a read-only research and monitoring gateway, the surface is fairly complete: universal routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, memory, and subscriptions all have lifecycle coverage. Relative to the Blockchair name, the blockchain side is thin but covers address, block, transaction, node, and stats, with only minor gaps like mempool or raw script details that agents can work around.