ureweries

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that the default model is free (Workers AI) and that probing Anthropic requires a BYO API key with direct payment to Anthropic, indicating cost/rate implications. It also details the return structure: per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} plus a combined view, which annotations do not cover.

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: two sentences covering core purpose, model options, and return format, followed by use cases. Every sentence adds distinct value: first defines action, second provides model details, third outlines returns, fourth lists applications. No redundant or filler content.

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 describes return values (per-model and combined). With 4 parameters all described and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description completes the picture by adding cost implications, use cases, and disambiguation hints. It satisfies the needs for an AI-agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema already describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds real-world examples (e.g., 'Boston restaurant') for the 'context' parameter and clarifies that '_apiKey' is passed through to Anthropic. It also reiterates the default model behavior, reinforcing the schema but not adding entirely new semantic constraints beyond usage hints.

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 a business/product/topic and returns a visibility score per model. The verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs' with specific output (score 0-100) precisely defines the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' which are about querying a specific assistant, not scoring visibility across models.

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 lists explicit use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It explains when to use different models: default is free, pass _apiKey for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'compare_entities' or 'entity_profile', though the context implies these are different tasks.

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, open-world, idempotent. Description adds that it routes to 3,745 tools and returns citation URIs, but could mention rate limits or response size.

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?

Long but well-structured: starts with guidance, then details, then examples. No unnecessary sentences.

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 covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what kind of answers to expect (structured with citations). Very complete for the 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all aliases. Description adds context that the tool 'fills arguments' automatically, going 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?

Clearly states it answers factual questions using authoritative structured data from many sources. Examples given. Distinguishes from web search.

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 instructs to prefer over web search, provides examples of questions and types of data, and lists query patterns like 'look up' or 'latest'.

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 (readOnlyHint, etc.), description adds details about refusal mechanism, extra LLM call cost, and structured return/refusal. 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?

Description is detailed but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-structured 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?

Given complexity (3,745 sources, refusal modes, cost trade-off), description covers return structure and behavior. No output schema, but return format is described. Adequate.

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 100% with descriptions for each alias property. Description does not add further parameter meaning beyond 'fills arguments,' so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains it extracts answer only from tool result, with specific return fields. It distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx.

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 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on...' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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 safe, idempotent, read-only operation. The description adds extensive behavioral context: low-confidence short-circuits, closed-market handling, resolution-rule risk, cancellation rules, parent event extraction, news fallback mechanisms, and liquidity warnings. 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 very detailed but verbose, spanning multiple paragraphs with extensive technical specifics. While well-structured with clear sections, some content (e.g., fan-out examples, response shapes) could be condensed or moved to an output schema if it existed. Still, it is well-organized and front-loaded with key usage.

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 classifiers, data packs, edge cases, resolution rules), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major behavioral aspects, response structure, potential failures, and safety mechanisms. Without an output schema, it fully documents return values and caveats.

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. The description further clarifies market parameter format (slug, URL, question text) with examples, explains depth choices, and details include_raw usage (default false for compact responses, true for full payloads).

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 researches a Polymarket bet by pulling relevant Pipeworx data. It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet + comparison). It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on comprehensive research, not just edge detection.

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 gives clear use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z') and guidance on market_match_confidence inspection. It explains depth parameter options. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings (e.g., for quick edge checks, refer to polymarket_edges).

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 a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns location, type, and contact details, and that it searches for 'all' breweries in a city. 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes examples. Every word is useful, no 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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is complete. It covers purpose, input, and output nature, and the annotations handle safety and idempotency.

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 provides example values and mentions 'limit' but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 'Find all' and resource 'breweries in a city', with concrete examples (Portland, Denver). It specifies the return data (location, type, contact details), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_brewery or search_breweries.

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 examples that imply typical usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_breweries) or when not to use it. Lack of exclusion or context guidance holds it back from a higher score.

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 valuable behavioral context: handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and returning citation URIs. 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 dense and well-structured, starting with example queries to quickly convey purpose. Every sentence adds value, but slightly verbose with repeated example patterns. Could be slightly more concise while retaining 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 two parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (paired data + citation URIs) and sorting behavior. However, it does not detail the exact structure of the paired data or how results are presented, leaving some ambiguity for an AI 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%, so baseline is 3. The description significantly adds meaning by explaining the semantic difference between company and drug types, specifying the data fields retrieved (e.g., revenue, net income for companies; adverse-event counts for drugs), and clarifying input formats (tickers/CIKs vs drug names).

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 side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call, with example queries and specific data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs). It distinguishes itself from 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?

The description explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing strong when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, slightly missing full 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 provide safety cues (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, gaps array (never invented), and expected timing (15-60s). 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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections: what it does, how it works, when to use, prerequisites. It's front-loaded with the key benefit. While slightly long, every sentence adds value.

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 (3,745 tools, 884 sources, parallel decomposition), the description covers all essential aspects: methodology, output format (gaps array, citations), prerequisites, and timing. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return structure.

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 both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the depth enum values ('quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)'), which goes beyond the schema enum text.

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 performs 'Grounded multi-source research in ONE call' by decomposing questions, routing to many tools, and returning structured findings. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by specifying it's for broad or multi-part questions.

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 tells when to use ('broad or multi-part questions') and when not ('use ask_pipeworx for single lookups'). Also specifies prerequisites: requires a Pipeworx account, and 'thorough' depth requires a paid plan.

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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the output: 'returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly.' 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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, includes relevant details without fluff, and each sentence contributes meaning. It efficiently communicates when and how to use the 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and output format. It does not discuss error handling or pagination, but the schema covers limit defaults, making it adequately complete for its role.

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%, and the description supplements by listing aliases (task, q, description, search) and providing example queries. This adds clarity beyond what the schema property descriptions offer.

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: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies that it returns relevant tool names, descriptions, and schemas, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by advising 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist') and provides a usage directive ('Call this FIRST'). It gives example domains for queries but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: parallel fan-out across sources, soft-fail for USPTO sunset, and detailed return structure. 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?

Description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured: starts with common user queries, then core function, then detailed output breakdown. Every sentence contributes value; could be slightly tighter.

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 fully enumerates return fields (cik, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and explains limitations (USPTO sunset). Complete for a profile 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 already describes both parameters (type, value) with 100% coverage. Description adds semantic detail: value accepts ticker or CIK, names not supported, and upcoming person/place support.

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.' It lists specific sources and data returned, differentiating it from siblings like resolve_entity and compare_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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack...lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and advises using resolve_entity for names. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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 annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description's 'delete' is consistent but not additive. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data, but overall behavioral transparency is adequately covered by 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, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary detail.

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 required param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and pairing with siblings. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the single parameter 'key'. Schema already describes it as 'Memory key to delete'.

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 deletes a memory by key, using specific verb 'delete' and resource 'memory by key'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remember and recall.

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 context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, providing clear 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?

The description discloses the internal steps (fetch, extract, emit) beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds process details but does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to digest.

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 few parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, process, output format (standard llms.txt), and use cases. Missing details about error handling or permissions are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 schema descriptions are adequate. The description mentions defaults and max for max_links 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for a given URL, specifying the verb 'Generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the context for AI crawler indexing. It is well-differentiated from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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 use cases (client indexing, drafting, auditing competitor visibility), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or 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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context about return fields (address, hours, type, contact info), enhancing behavioral understanding beyond the 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, 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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it still lists key fields. The tool is simple and the context is fully covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's id parameter description, reinforcing that the ID is used for lookup.

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 'Get' and the resource 'full details for a brewery by ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_breweries by instructing to use that tool to find IDs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool (get full details by ID) and directs users to search_breweries for finding IDs, providing clear context without explicit exclusions for other sibling tools.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which convey safety and idempotence. The description adds that it returns specific fields and focuses on 'active' subscriptions, but does not contradict annotations. The behavioral transparency burden is partially met by annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: first sentence states purpose and return fields, second gives usage context. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without any waste.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. The tool is simple (one optional param), and the description covers its purpose, return data, and usage context. It is sufficiently complete for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'include_inactive', which is described in the schema. The description mentions 'active' subscriptions, implying the default behavior, but does not explicitly explain the parameter beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline but adds minimal extra value.

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 lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes 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?

The description provides explicit context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied sibling tools.

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?

All annotations are false (non-destructive, non-readonly, etc.), and the description adds transparency about rate limits (5 per identifier per day) and free usage. It also reveals the team's response process (daily digests, roadmap influence). 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 five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage conditions, formatting guidelines, team process, and constraints. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and has no redundant text.

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 lack of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input types, usage context, constraints (rate limit, free), and team response. For a simple feedback tool, this is fully 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the enum values in context and advising on message format (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max). This goes beyond the 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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and lists specific use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only feedback-dedicated tool among many data-retrieval and analysis 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 states when to use the tool for each feedback type and what not to do ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). It also includes rate limits and cost information, providing complete context for invocation.

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 ('CF analytics-engine'), privacy ('no PII'), output format ('(pack, tool, count)'), and 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with core functionality. Very little waste. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for use cases), but it remains concise and readable.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers its purpose, use cases, data derivation, privacy, and caching comprehensively. 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% and already describes the window parameter with enum values and a note about shorter vs longer windows. The description reiterates this context but does not add significant new semantic meaning 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 specifies the verb ('calling', 'Returns'), the resource ('top tools, top packs, total call volume'), and the scope (over a recent window). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on trending/popularity signals rather than search or entity resolution.

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 three concrete use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, aligning with agent trends). Does not mention when not to use or provide explicit alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. Description expands with algorithmic details (monotonicity checks, partition sum checks, semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check) and explains failure conditions like skipped_low_similarity and placeholder fraction.

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?

Long but efficiently structured – uses clear hierarchy (sections like SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK). 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?

Despite no output schema, description fully documents response shape (opportunities[], partition_check, fill_check), references sibling tool for custom sizing, and covers error conditions. Complete 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?

Both parameters (event, topic) are described with full schema coverage. Description adds context beyond schema: slug/URL format, recommended usage, and behavioral differences between modes.

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 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It clearly distinguishes between event and topic modes and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'REQUIRES one of event or topic', recommends event for specific markets and topic for cross-event scanning, explains when not to trade via fill check, and directs to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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 readOnly/ idempotent hints. The description adds extensive behavioral details: three model families with formulas (e.g., lognormal barrier, GDELT ratio), edge calculation including slippage, Kelly sizing caps, diagnostics for empty segments, caching policy, and Fed bet exclusion. 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 overly long and dense, with a lot of technical detail packed into a single paragraph. Although it uses headers, it lacks front-loading; the core purpose is stated first but then buried under detailed formulas. Could be significantly streamlined.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), filter logic, and caching. Nothing essential is omitted for an agent to use the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description adds extra context beyond the schema, such as explaining why min_partition_leg_kelly exists (partition arbs return kelly_fraction_half=0) and practical tips for slippage_pp. This adds moderate value.

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 a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('top Polymarket markets'), explicitly stating the tool returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx-driven edge discovery.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker). The description implies it's for daily bet discovery but lacks when-not-to or comparative recommendations.

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, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: data comes from daily snapshots, gaps occur on cache-misses, decay uses daily closes not intraday, and history starts from snapshotting enablement. 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 thorough but concise for the amount of detail. It front-loads the purpose, then details response structure and limits. Each section adds value without 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully outlines the response format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with field explanations. It also covers limitations and data gaps, making the tool's behavior completely transparent.

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 repeats parameter defaults and ranges (days max 30, window default 1wk) but adds no additional semantics beyond what is in 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 it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by emphasizing temporal tracking and opportunity aging.

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 when this tool is useful (e.g., comparing fresh vs. old edges) and includes limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, though siblings provide contrast.

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=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it checks live order-book depth, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and warns about forced directional risk from partial basket fills. 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 detailed and well-structured, using bold for key terms and separating modes. While every sentence is informative, it is slightly lengthy. Could be slightly more concise 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?

No output schema exists, so the description fully compensates by listing all return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs). It also covers edge cases and failure modes, making the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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 parameter descriptions. The description goes beyond by explaining default values for side and size_usd, interpretation differences for buys vs sells, basket settlement notional, and auto-detection for basket side. This adds significant meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('realizable-vs-theoretical edge check') and clearly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes with distinct outputs. It also differentiates from sibling tools by stating it should be used before acting on polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges signals.

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 is provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains when not to use (smaller trades) and warns about failure modes like partial fills converting arb to directional risk.

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description details compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, and skipped leg comparisons. It explains what triggers warnings and when spreads are meaningless, providing full transparency.

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 clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS). It packs dense information efficiently, though some repetition could be trimmed. Good organization.

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 (cross-venue spread with safety checks), the description covers modes, response fields (including top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment), and limitations. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining the response structure.

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 parameter. The description adds extra context: lists the 10 topic shortcuts, explains override behavior, and provides examples. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying 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 computes the spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage. It specifies the resource (cross-venue spread) and action (compute), with concrete examples.

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 describes two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) with guidance on when to use each. Warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility_warning, advising that 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' and explaining limitations.

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. The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains that omitting the key lists all keys, that values are scoped to the agent's identifier, and that it pairs with remember/forget. This adds behavioral transparency without contradicting 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 four sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives use cases, the third specifies scoping, and the fourth pairs with siblings. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and full annotations, the description is entirely sufficient. It covers all necessary aspects: action, use cases, scoping, and relation to siblings. 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 one optional parameter, and the schema already describes omitting key to list all keys. The description adds semantics by explaining the retrieval behavior ('value previously saved via remember'), scoping, and pairing with sibling tools. This provides additional meaning 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 retrieves a saved value or lists all keys, distinguishing it from siblings remember and forget by name. It uses specific verbs 'retrieve' and 'list' with the resource 'value previously saved via remember' or 'all saved keys'.

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 when to use: 'to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' It notes scoping to the agent's identifier and pairs with remember/forget, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, preventing a 5.

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, non-destructive. Description adds value by detailing returned fields, filtering options, mark_read flag behavior, and that polls work fine. 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?

Description is 5 sentences, efficient, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value. No 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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers return fields, filtering, mark_read behavior, and alternative access. It does not explain 'limit' or 'unread_only' in the description, but schema covers them. Sufficient for a read-only polling 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 baseline is 3. Description adds context for 'type' (example 'sec_8k') and 'mark_read' (affects next call). It does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'unread_only', but the schema descriptions are clear. Overall adds meaningful extra context.

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 the verb 'Pull' and resource 'fired events from your subscription feed'. It specifies what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw event payload) and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_subscriptions' which lists subscriptions, not alerts.

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?

Provides clear context: filtering by type and since, mark_read behavior, and notes that polling works fine. Also mentions an alternative URL for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_subscriptions'.

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 details on fan-out logic, fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews), USPTO soft-fail, and return format (grouped changes with count and citation URIs), aligning 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 a single paragraph that starts with user-facing examples, then moves to technical details and alternatives. Every sentence serves a purpose with 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return structure (grouped changes, total count, citation URIs) and covers edge cases like USPTO soft-fail and fallback behavior. It fully prepares an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 all three parameters. The description enhances by explaining 'since' with multiple example formats and clarifying that 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. 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 provides a change feed for a company over a specified time window, fanning out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, and USPTO. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile' by noting when to use that instead.

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 query examples ('What's new with X') and says to use 'entity_profile' for static profiles regardless of window. It also recommends typical values for 'since' (e.g., '30d' or '1m').

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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that authenticated users get persistent memory and anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours, providing important behavioral context beyond annotations. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently structured to convey core functionality and usage.

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?

Completeness is high given no output schema: explains key-value scoping, persistence differences, and pairing with sibling tools. All necessary context for a write 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing both key and value fields with examples. The description adds naming conventions but baseline is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 saves data for reuse later, with specific examples like 'resolved ticker, target address, user preference'. It distinguishes itself from siblings recall and forget by mentioning 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 says 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' and explicitly pairs with 'recall to retrieve later, forget to delete', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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 value by detailing the internal cascading behavior ('Each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally') and specifying the exact returned fields for each entity type, including citation URIs.

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 front-loaded with examples and a clear ‘Use FIRST’ directive. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes essential information, making it acceptable given the complexity.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains what each entity type returns (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, etc.) and provides context about automatic disambiguation and citation URIs. It is complete for a two-parameter lookup 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%, but the description significantly expands on each parameter's semantics. For the 'value' parameter, it explains acceptable inputs per type (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand or generic for drug) with examples like 'AAPL' and 'ozempic', adding clarity far 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 starts with concrete user utterances like 'What's the ticker for…' and clearly states it resolves a name to a canonical identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as `compare_entities` and `entity_profile` by focusing exclusively on ID lookup.

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 instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' This sets clear priority and context. It does not list explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the purpose is so specific that the 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds specific behavioral details: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and returns score, confidence, 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 with clear front-loading of the main action, plus a concrete example. No redundancy or 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?

Description explains the return structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) since there is no output schema. Parameters are well-documented in schema, and annotations are rich. Minor gaps in error handling or rate limits, but overall complete 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% with each parameter described. Description reinforces context (e.g., first entity as subject) but does not add new meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, using 'compare' as the verb and 'AI visibility' as the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by focusing on competitive AI-marketing audits.

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?

Description specifies use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and provides an example question, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 safety cues, but description adds crucial behavior: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30 seconds, and sources_failed lists timeout. 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?

Description is fairly lengthy but front-loaded with purpose and all sentences are informative. Could slightly tighten 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 lists specific output fields (summary block, per-advisory details, links, alternative versions) and covers edge cases like partial failures. Very complete for a complex composite 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%, so description adds no new info beyond confirming defaults and scoped packages. 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?

Description clearly states it's a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on npm package analysis.

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 tells when to use: when an agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding an npm package. Also notes ecosystem limitations and alternatives for other languages.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the fields returned (location, phone, website, contact details) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly concise.

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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the search criterion and return fields, while annotations handle safety. Minor gaps like pagination or sorting are not critical for this 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 fully documented there. The description adds minimal semantic value by saying 'by name' (matching the query parameter), but does not enhance understanding 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 action ('Search for breweries by name') and specifies the resource and output fields. It distinguishes from siblings like breweries_by_city (which searches by city) and get_brewery (which likely retrieves a single brewery).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where it should be avoided. Only the basic search functionality is described.

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 embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), window size (500-char overlapping), and character limit (200K with truncation). Adds value beyond annotations which only indicate idempotent/read-only.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, concise yet informative. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 key aspects for a complex tool: purpose, when to use, pairing, technical details (embeddings, windows, limits), and output format (passages with offsets and scores). No output schema, but description explains return structure.

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 good descriptions. The description adds relevant examples for the query parameter ('supply-chain risk', etc.) and clarifies the text parameter's character limit, enriching 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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with specific examples (SEC 10-K, article, tool result). It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by focusing on internal search.

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 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and suggests pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Though it doesn't list explicit when-not-to-use, 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?

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: returns subscription ID, persistent feed always on, optional delivery channels with specific limits (SMS 10/day), webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, and HMAC signing. 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?

Description is thorough but slightly long; however, it is well-organized with front-loaded purpose followed by type and delivery details. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise.

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 subscription creation with multiple types and delivery options, the description covers prerequisites, all type-specific parameters, delivery channels, limits, and security. No output schema exists, but return value is mentioned.

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, description adds detailed examples for each type in params, and explains delivery channel behavior (always-on feed, email/SMS/webhook specifics, limits, security). Adds significant meaning 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream', and explicitly notes it returns the new subscription ID. Differentiates from sibling tools like list_subscriptions 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?

Specifies prerequisites (requires Pipeworx OAuth account), lists supported types with parameters, and describes delivery channels. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but provides sufficient context for typical use.

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 concrete behavioral context: it returns example questions from a live catalog and is the recommended starting point. 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 comprehensive yet efficient, starting with user-facing phrasings, then explaining functionality and usage. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical 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?

Given only one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, and output. The sibling list is large but the description adequately differentiates.

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 detailed parameter description listing valid topics. The tool's description repeats the topic values but adds context about focusing the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema richness.

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 the onboarding entry point, listing user intent phrasings and detailing the output (category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shape). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do') and provides usage variants (full spread vs. focused topic). Also implies when not to use (when already familiar with capabilities).

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 behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the row is deactivated, not deleted, and historical events remain available via recent_alerts.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Efficiently conveys all necessary 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?

Description covers purpose, behavioral nuances, and references related tools (subscribe, recent_alerts). Completeness is sufficient 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% for the single parameter. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema description, so 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?

Description clearly uses 'Cancel a subscription by id' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions.

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?

States ownership enforcement, telling users they can only cancel their own subscriptions. Implies when to use, but does not mention alternatives for canceling others' subscriptions.

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, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a verdict, extracted structured form, actual value with a citation, percent delta, and that it replaces multiple calls. It also notes v1 limitations, providing useful context 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 information-dense with no wasted words. It front-loads example phrasings, states purpose, domain, return values, and efficiency gain. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, fully covered schema, no output schema), the description covers purpose, domain, scope, return values, and limitations. It is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds examples of claim formats and domain scope but does not add significantly more parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already 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 verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources, specifically company-financial claims. It provides example phrasings and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it replaces multiple 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' and specifies the domain (company-financial claims). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but context is clear.

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