Bnr Ro

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds substantial behavioral context: free default model, BYO key for Anthropic with billing details, return structure (per-model fields and combined view), and that it probes multiple LLMs. 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 efficiently convey purpose, model options, return format, and use cases. Information is front-loaded and no unnecessary words. 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 lack of output schema, the description outlines return fields and mentions use cases. It covers entity probing well but could include error handling or model availability details. Still, it is largely complete for this type of 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between 'models' and '_apiKey', specifying the default model, and clarifying billing for Anthropic calls. 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 probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility (0-100) per model, with specific details about default model and optional Anthropic probe. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on per-model scoring for individual 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 provides clear usage context: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It explains when to use the _apiKey for Anthropic probes but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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?

Adds context beyond annotations: describes routing behavior, citation URIs, tier compatibility, and call speed. 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?

Well-structured with front-loaded instruction, bullet points, and examples. Slightly long but each sentence adds value for a complex 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?

Covers purpose, usage, return format (structured answer with citations), and sibling relationships comprehensively 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 description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 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 description clearly states it is a general-purpose factual query tool that routes to thousands of sources, distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, and provides specific use cases.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'START HERE for most questions', gives examples, and explains when to step up to alternatives for specific needs.

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. The description adds concrete behavioral details: return format with evidence/refusal, cost of extra LLM call, and that it extracts only from tool results. 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 fairly long but well-structured, front-loading purpose and key differentiators. Each sentence adds value, though some conciseness could be gained.

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 complexity of the tool (high-stakes, multiple refusal reasons, cost tradeoff), the description is thorough. It explains return format, refusal scenarios, and usage context. No output schema, so description compensates 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each alias. The description only says 'Your question in natural language', adding little beyond 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 clearly states the tool is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and specifies it extracts answers using only tool results. It distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting the grounded extraction and explicit refusal mechanism.

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 answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when to prefer the lighter alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). Also mentions cost tradeoff.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by detailing resolution logic, fan-out patterns, response shapes, resolver contract, parent event extractor, news fallbacks, safety mechanisms, wide-spread handling, and resolution-rule risk. 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 long but well-structured: purpose stated upfront, followed by examples, classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, and safety details. While thorough, minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing essential 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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: inputs, behavior, outputs, edge cases (closed markets, low confidence, illiquid spreads), and safety. Detailed response shapes compensate for the missing output 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%, and the description adds significant additional context for each parameter: explaining accepted formats for 'market' (slug, URL, question text), the difference between 'quick' and 'thorough' for 'depth', and the impact of 'include_raw' on response size. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies the verb 'research' and the resource 'Polymarket bet', and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on betting research with specific data fan-out.

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: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z"' and explains when to trust results, with safety mechanisms like low-confidence short-circuiting. It gives clear context and alternatives implicitly through the detailed behavior.

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?

Adds extensive detail beyond annotations: explains how fiscal years are handled, sorted results, return of citation URIs. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world; description aligns and enriches.

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?

Dense yet well-structured: starts with usage examples, then explains behavior, parameter details, and benefits. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Covers all aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral quirks (fiscal year handling), output format (paired data + URIs), and usage guidance. No output schema, but description sufficiently explains returns.

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 description adds significant meaning: explains what data each type pulls (SEC financials vs. FAERS counts), how values are interpreted (tickers/CIKs vs. drug names), and the min/max constraint (2-5).

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 it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with specific verbs like 'compare', 'vs', 'rank'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile (single entity) and 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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing clear usage context. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use (e.g., single entity lookup), but the guidance is strong.

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 behavioral context: decomposes question into facets, parallel routing to 4,552 tools, output format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, and gaps[]). 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 fairly long but well-structured with key caveats upfront (account required) and clear sections. Every sentence adds value, though some could be tightened. Still well-organized and informative.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description comprehensively covers prerequisites, alternatives, use cases, limitations, output format, and expected performance. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent.

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 both parameters described. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema, such as depth enum interpretations (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and that question should be natural language. This adds value, so a 4 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 specifies a concrete action: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1160 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with ask_pipeworx for single lookups and ask_pipeworx for breaking news.

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 (broad/multi-part questions) and when not (single lookup or breaking news, with specific alternative tools named). Also provides prerequisites (account required, paid plan for 'thorough' depth) and expected latency (15-60s).

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, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable context: returns full schemas ready to call, no second lookup needed, and delivers top-N most relevant tools. 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?

Concise 5-sentence description, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or verbosity.

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 explains return format (names, descriptions, full schemas, examples) and that results are callable directly. Annotations cover safety. Could be more precise about 'top-N' but overall complete for a discovery 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description provides natural language examples but does not add substantial new meaning beyond 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?

Clear verb 'Find tools by describing the data or task' with specific resource (tools). Distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as the discovery tool to call FIRST before other specialized tools.

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 need to browse, search, look up, or discover'), and provides a clear directive: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' Also implicitly signals not for single answer.

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 behavioral details like fanning across sources, patents API sunset with soft-fail, and specific return fields. 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 lengthy but well-structured with example queries at the start. Every sentence is informative, though minor redundancy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sources, fallbacks) and lack of output schema, the description covers return fields, sources, and a known limitation (patents API sunset). It is adequately complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying that 'value' must be ticker or zero-padded CIK, and explicitly states 'Names not supported,' which is not in the schema 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 provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call,' with specific verbs like 'profile' and resources like 'US public company.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'resolve_entity' by noting that names are not supported.

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 usage guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and 'names not supported (use resolve_entity first if you only have a name).' This clearly tells when to use this tool versus 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: data source (BNR daily XML), return structure (reference date + array), and the multiplier concept for rate interpretation. 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 yet informative, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and efficiently explains the multiplier concept. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully explains the return values (reference date + array of currency rates) and the multiplier calculation. For a parameterless tool, this provides sufficient detail for correct 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds meaning by explaining the output format and multiplier, which is helpful for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 returns the latest National Bank of Romania official FX reference rates, parsed from the BNR's daily XML feed. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'exchange_rates_history' by focusing on current rates.

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 implicitly indicates usage for obtaining latest exchange rates, and the sibling tool name 'exchange_rates_history' suggests an alternative for historical data. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: output format (array with date, rates with currency/value/multiplier), rate interpretation (RON per multiplier units), and that currency set varies across dates. 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?

Four sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main purpose, then details on arguments, output format, and a caveat. 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?

No output schema, but description fully explains return structure and how to interpret rates. Covers default, year usage, and variability of currency set. Complete for a read-only historical data 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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning: default period behavior, that year overrides period, and that '10days' returns last 10 business days. This goes beyond the schema's 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 the tool returns historical BNR official FX rates, parsed from XML. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'exchange_rates' by specifying 'history', making the purpose 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 explains default behavior (last 10 days without arguments), how to get a full year (pass year), and that period is ignored if year is set. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the 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?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about clearing 'sensitive data', which is a behavioral detail 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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and usage guidelines. Every word adds value; 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?

While the description covers purpose and usage, it lacks information about return behavior (e.g., success/error handling) and does not mention what happens if the key does not exist. This is a gap for a simple tool with no output 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 'key' parameter. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond 'by key'.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'previously stored memory by key'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by focusing on deletion.

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 the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also suggests pairing with siblings 'remember and recall'.

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?

Describes fetching the page, extracting title/description/key links, and emitting standard markdown format. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.) by explaining the extraction process and 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?

Two sentences plus a bullet list of use cases. Front-loaded with purpose, every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 explains output as 'single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'. Covers all necessary context for using the tool: input URL, optional max_links, process, and output 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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds default value (25) and max (50) for max_links, which duplicates schema info. No additional semantic value beyond schema. Baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Generate' and resource 'llms.txt file' for any URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by specifying the exact output format for AI crawler indexing.

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 lists use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting own project's llms.txt, auditing competitor's AI crawler view. Does not specify when not to use, but the use case list effectively guides appropriate 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds return field details and parameter usage context, complementing 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage guidance. 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?

For a simple list tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description covers return values, usage intent, and parameter effect, making it 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% for the single parameter include_inactive. Description does not add beyond schema but also does not omit; 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 states 'List the caller's active subscriptions.' and enumerates returned fields, clearly identifying the tool's function and distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This guides the agent on appropriate contexts versus 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 are generic (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), but the description adds valuable behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and doesn't count against tool-call quota. It also explains that the team reads digests daily and feedback affects roadmap. 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, starting with the main purpose, then usage guidance, then formatting rules, then rate limits. It is slightly long but all sentences earn their 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 (feedback submission), the description covers usage, rate limits, and content guidelines. It does not mention the response/return value, but for a feedback tool this is acceptably 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 description coverage is 100%; the description reinforces the meaning of each parameter, especially the 'type' enum values and the 'message' field (be specific, 2000 char max). This adds value beyond the structured 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's purpose: submitting feedback (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) to the Pipeworx team. It distinguishes from siblings; no other tool serves this feedback 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 explicitly lists when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides guidance on how to format feedback (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste user prompt). It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the positive guidance 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds valuable details: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII (just counts), caching behavior (5min-1h). 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?

Every sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with the main function, followed by clear use cases and technical transparency. No wasted words or redundancy. Well-organized with bullet-like structure.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains return values (top tools, packs, volume), window options, data aggregation method, privacy, and caching.

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 single enum parameter. Description adds meaning by explaining that shorter windows surface hot trends and longer windows show steady-state demand, which goes beyond the enum 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?

Description clearly states it returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a window. The verb 'Returns' plus specific resource 'what other AI agents are calling on Pipeworx right now' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools.

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 use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming popular tool, aligning use case) and explains window trade-offs. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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: monotonicity checks, partition_sum validation, semantic similarity filter, placeholder filtering, fill check with book depth. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint).

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 detailed but well-structured with logical sections. Could be slightly trimmed, but every sentence adds value. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-mode, multiple checks, edge cases like placeholder slugs and Jaccard similarity), the description is thorough. Covers output schema implicitly and includes trade guidance.

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 parameters, but the description adds significant context: example event slugs, explanation of modes, output structure (opportunities[], partition_check), and fill check behavior. 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?

The description clearly states it finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) and specifies the methodology, making the tool's purpose 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?

Explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'call with NO args for trending_scan', 'event (recommended for a specific market)', 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. It also explains when not to trade (fill check) and provides examples.

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 substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: cache behavior (1h KV-level), response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics), edge calculation methodology, slippage adjustments, and filter logic. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description aligns with that.

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 clear section headers (all caps) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity. While not concise, the structure aids parsing for both agents and humans.

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 thoroughly covers return values: segments, fed candidates, diagnostics, edge fields (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, etc.), and 24h-move warning. It also explains behavior of all parameters and filters, making the tool fully specifiable and interpretable.

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?

With 100% schema coverage (all parameters described in schema), baseline is 3. The description adds context for knobs like min_partition_leg_kelly and explains how parameters interact (e.g., min_kelly vs min_partition_leg_kelly). This extra semantic value justifies 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 scans Polymarket markets and returns edges where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by detailing specific model-driven, structural arbitrage, and concentrated longshot segments.

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 targets 'what should I bet on today' and explains tradeable-edge knobs and filters. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparisons, but the extensive guidance on parameters and response structure implies appropriate 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: snapshot gaps indicate no scan, decay uses daily closes, and history bounded by TTL. 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 fairly long but well-structured, starting with the core question, then detailing the response fields, and ending with limitations. Each sentence adds value, but slight trimming could improve conciseness.

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 response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their semantics. It covers limitations (TTL, decay from daily closes, snapshot gaps) and parameter details. The tool's complexity is well-addressed.

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 both parameters (days, window). The description adds semantic details: default values, clamping for days, window family, and explains the response structure. This exceeds the baseline of 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: measuring edge persistence and decay telemetry over time using daily snapshots. It distinguishes from the sibling tool `polymarket_edges` by focusing on historical trends, not current 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?

The description implicitly guides usage by contrasting a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old wide edge, indicating when to assess edge quality over time. It also mentions limits like TTL and decay calculation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: explains it walks the order-book ladder, returns a verdict (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and warns that partial basket fills convert arbs into unhedged directional positions. 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 well-structured with bold headings (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat verbose, especially in the basket section, but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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 complexity (two modes, multiple return fields, risk warnings) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates return values for both modes (top_of_book, vwap, slippage, verdict, thin_legs, etc.), explains edge cases (thin books, partial fills), and provides strategic usage context. No gaps identified.

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 4 parameters with descriptions. The description enriches semantics by explaining the dual role of market/event for mode selection, auto-detection of side for baskets, and the interpretation of size_usd as settlement notional in basket mode. Also notes default values and clamping (10–1,000,000). This adds meaningful context 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 performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', specifying two distinct modes (single-market and basket). It uses specific verbs ('check', 'walk the ladder') and explicitly links to sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, differentiating its role as a pre-execution risk check.

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?

Guidance is explicit: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also clarifies required parameters ('REQUIRES one of market or event') and warns against partial basket fills. Could be slightly more specific about when not to use (e.g., small trades under $500), but the 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?

Annotations indicate the tool is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond these by explaining compatibility conditions, skipped comparison counters, temporal alignment, and semantic warnings, providing a comprehensive 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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured with bold labels (TWO MODES, SAFETY FIELDS) and logical flow. Every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose 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?

For a tool without output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure and all key fields (leg-by-leg prices, spread, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). Covers all aspects needed for correct 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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds operational context, such as how topic maps to events and how explicit parameters override the topic side. This provides meaningful additional guidance beyond 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: computing cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes the two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'polymarket_arbitrage' which focus on a single venue.

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 guidance on when to use each mode (topic vs explicit), and warns that most pre-mapped topics may not yield tradeable spreads due to compatibility issues. It also explains safety fields that indicate when spreads are invalid (e.g., temporal misalignment or non-equivalent bet shapes).

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 mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds that omitting 'key' lists all keys, and that it is scoped to the user identifier. No contradictions; the description enriches understanding 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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value. It front-loads the primary function and avoids redundancy, with 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 lookup tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains behavior (value retrieval or key listing), scoping, and relationship to sibling tools. 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% with a description for the single parameter 'key'. The description clarifies that omitting 'key' lists all keys, adding functional meaning not fully captured in the schema 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 retrieves a value saved via 'remember' or lists all saved keys. It uses specific verbs ('retrieve', 'list') and resource ('value', 'keys'), and distinguishes from sibling tools '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 advises using the tool to look up stored context without re-deriving it, and notes scoping by identifier. It pairs with 'remember' and 'forget' but lacks explicit statements on when not to use or alternative tools, though the sibling list provides 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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details: the mark_read flag updates read status, affecting subsequent calls, and that polling is safe. 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 two sentences but front-loaded with purpose and key details. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., the alternative URL note is extra), but overall it is efficient and well-structured 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?

With 5 parameters all documented in schema, no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects like mark_read, filtering, and polling. It is complete for a simple recent alerts tool, though pagination beyond limit is not addressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of mark_read, specifying that 'since' is an ISO timestamp, and clarifying that 'type' filters by subscription type, which goes beyond the schema's 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 the tool pulls fired events from the user's subscription feed, specifying it returns recent alerts with source, citation_uri, and raw payload. This specific verb and resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions which list subscriptions themselves.

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 mentions polling works fine and provides an alternative URL for scripts/dashboards, offering some guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, leaving room for improvement.

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 data sources (SEC, GDELT, GNews, USPTO), fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews on rate limit or 5xx), soft-fail for patents due to sunset, and return structure. Annotations already show readOnly and idempotent; description adds valuable behavioral context 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 thorough and front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence provides value, though it is somewhat lengthy. Minor conciseness improvements possible but still effective.

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, description specifies return format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). Covers edge cases (patents soft-fail, fallback) and 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?

Adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains `since` format (ISO date or relative shorthand) with examples, notes typical monitoring value ('30d'), and clarifies `value` accepts ticker or CIK. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches 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 provides a change feed for a company, covering SEC filings, news (GDELT/GNews), and patents. It distinguishes from sibling entity_profile by specifying that this tool is for dynamic changes within a window, while entity_profile is for 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?

Explicitly provides example queries and tells when NOT to use this tool: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'. This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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: memory scoped by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs. anonymous sessions (24-hour retention). Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, and description aligns 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 concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and logically structured. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more terse without losing clarity.

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 key-value tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: scope, persistence, and related tools (recall, forget). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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%, so the description adds limited additional value. It provides example key patterns (e.g., 'subject_property') but the schema already describes both parameters adequately. 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's purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions.' The verb 'save' and resource 'data' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and mentions pairing with recall and forget. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements but still offers good contextual usage advice.

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. Description adds that the tool cascades through multiple endpoints internally, auto-disambiguates, and returns specific fields for each type (e.g., ticker, CIK, citation URI for company; RxCUI, ingredient for drug). 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 well-structured with example phrases first, then core statement, then type details. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Front-loading of examples aids quick 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 tool's complexity (two entity types with different return structures and no output schema), the description fully covers both types, including return fields and citation URIs. Annotations cover safety. 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%, but the description adds significant meaning: examples of valid inputs for 'value' (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand/generic for drug), and explains the return structure for each type. This 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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves user-spoken names to canonical identifiers required by other tools. It uses specific verbs ('resolve') and resources ('entity'), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.'

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 FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and notes it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, even if not explicitly stating 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context: probing each entity, ranking by score, and returning a ranked list with score, confidence, and 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and method, followed by use case and output. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and the process. No mention of error cases, but overall complete for a read-only, idempotent 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%; each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., mentioning first entity as subject, 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities'. It differentiates from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic) by detailing the use of multiple probes and ranking by score.

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 a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It implies when to use (comparing multiple entities) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though it references ai_visibility_check.

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, etc.), the description discloses fan-out across services, return details, bundlephobia latency, and graceful partial failure with sources_failed field.

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?

Despite being a single paragraph, it is front-loaded with purpose and every sentence provides essential information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description completely covers return structure, ecosystem scope, and failure behavior, leaving no significant 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that scoped packages like '@types/node' are accepted and that version defaults to latest, enhancing 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 is a composite check for adding npm packages, covering deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency', with a distinct purpose.

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 to use when the agent asks about safety, popularity, or size. Also states the ecosystem limitation (npm only in v1) and that other ecosystems fall under deps.dev:version directly.

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, etc.), the description details the embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), window size (500 chars), character limit (200K with truncation flag), and output format (offsets and 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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (semantic search on text with embeddings) and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers constraints (200K char cap, truncation, windowing), output format (passages with offsets and scores), and tool pairings, making it fully informative.

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 clarifying the max character count for text, providing example queries, and specifying the limit default and range, which goes beyond the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as semantic search inside a fetched record, specifying the verb (search) and resource (text from a record). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining the workflow pairing.

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 the tool ('when the record is too big to cram into the prompt') and provides alternatives ('Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded'), giving clear context for decision-making.

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 non-readonly, idempotent, not destructive, open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns new subscription ID, requires OAuth, delivery channels behaviors (feed always on, webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, webhook secret returned once). 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the primary action. It covers several types and delivery options without unnecessary fluff. A slight improvement would be using bullet points for types, but overall it's efficient.

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 appropriately states it returns the new subscription id. It covers prerequisites, type variants, delivery channels, and edge cases (auto-disable, secret-once). The depth is sufficient 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 description coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds further meaning: explains type-specific parameters (e.g., sec_8k items codes meaning), delivery constraints, and webhook signing. This goes beyond the schema, 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 explicitly states 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe. The supported types and delivery channels are detailed.

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 guidance: requires Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous/BYO cannot persist), lists supported types with example parameters, and details delivery channel constraints (SMS phone verification, 10/day cap). It effectively tells when and how to use the 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds 'Returns category-bucketed example questions ... with the exact tool + argument shape', disclosing the output structure and behavior 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 somewhat long but well-structured: it starts with alternative queries, then states the tool's purpose, then details output and usage. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly 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?

Given the simple input (no required params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It aligns with annotations and context signals, leaving 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 description adds meaningful context: the topic parameter is optional, provides example values, and explains the effect of omission ('full spread' vs focus). This goes beyond 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 explicitly states that this tool is the onboarding entry point for new users to discover what they can ask Pipeworx. It uses specific verbs ('returns category-bucketed example questions') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by being the first tool to call when unsure.

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 says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you', providing clear context for when to use. It also explains that passing a topic focuses results. However, it could explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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 provide basic traits (idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only). The description adds valuable behavioral details: ownership enforcement, deactivation vs deletion, and that historical events remain available via 'recent_alerts'. 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 composed of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action and constraint, followed by a behavioral detail. Every sentence is necessary and no word is wasted.

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 covers purpose, constraints, behavior, and side effects. Combined with informative annotations, it provides a complete picture for the agent.

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 with a description for the 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning by stating 'by id', but the schema already explains the parameter well. 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 verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'a subscription by id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying the unique action of cancellation.

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 (to cancel a subscription) and includes an important constraint: 'you can only cancel your own subscriptions.' It does not explicitly guide the agent on when not to use it, but the ownership rule implicitly excludes other 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing the return format (verdict, extracted form, actual value, citation, percent delta) and the fact that it replaces multiple sequential calls, which informs the agent about efficiency.

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 paragraph but is front-loaded with examples and key verbs. It is concise without superfluous information, though a slight structural breakdown (e.g., listing supported claim types separately) could 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what input to provide, and what outputs to expect (verdict types, citation, delta). No gaps remain for the agent to guess.

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% description coverage for the single parameter 'claim', but the description adds value by providing concrete examples ('Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion') and clarifying the scope (company-financial claims), which aids the agent in formulating the input correctly.

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 using multiple natural-language trigger phrases like 'Is it true that…' and 'fact check'. It specifies the resource (natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources) and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also defines the supported domain (company-financial claims). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or provide alternative sibling tools for different claim types.

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