list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), which is behavioral context beyond structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output, second sentence provides usage guidance. Concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage. No gaps remain.
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 parameter (include_inactive) well-described in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond repeating 'active subscriptions' and implying the parameter's effect. 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. It lists return fields but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe', though the context implies listing.
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 context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
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.
Most tools have highly detailed descriptions that clarify their distinct roles, and the pipeworx/boi/polymarket families are individually distinguishable. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx (a true duplicate), and the polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) share overlapping purpose and could cause misselection despite their lengthy docs.
Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but a large subset uses noun-first or prefixed compound names (ai_visibility_check, bet_research, boi_exchange_rate, polymarket_arbitrage). The naming is readable and group-consistent (boi_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*) but the overall convention is mixed rather than uniform.
At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and spans many unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, llms.txt generation, feedback). The broad scope explains the count, but many tools feel like add-on utilities rather than a tightly scoped server, making the surface feel bloated.
The core domain—authoritative structured data access—is extremely well covered: universal routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, resolution, discovery, and suggestions. Minor gaps exist (no explicit tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI directly, no update operation for subscriptions), but agents can work around these via the router and existing subscription lifecycle tools.