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 the annotations, the description adds important side-effects: the row is deactivated (not deleted) and historical events remain available via recent_alerts. Ownership enforcement is also disclosed. This aligns with destructiveHint: false and enriches the behavioral model.
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 with the action, then constraints and side-effects. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?
The description covers the core action, ownership constraints, and the deactivation side-effect. Combined with the annotations (idempotent, not destructive, not read-only), the tool is fully described for a simple single-parameter operation.
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' with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only restating that cancellation is by id, which is already in the 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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe (creates) and list_subscriptions (lists), and the id-based targeting is precise.
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 clear context that ownership is enforced, so users know they can only cancel their own subscriptions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the name and sibling context make the primary use obvious.
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.