Carbon Intensity Uk

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing that the tool probes multiple models, scores visibility on a 0-100 scale, requires an API key for Anthropic, and returns per-model metrics and a combined view. It also mentions billing implications (free default vs. direct payment for Anthropic). This adds value beyond annotations, though rate limits or error handling are not discussed.

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 and well-structured, with three to four sentences each serving a clear purpose: main action, model options, output format, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and uses concrete examples (e.g., 'Pipeworx'). No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the default model, optional Anthropic integration, and the output structure (per-model and combined). While it does not cover edge cases like network errors or rate limits, the description is adequate for an agent to understand expected usage and 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the purpose of parameters (e.g., 'context' helps disambiguate, '_apiKey' is optional for Anthropic) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not notably enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 brand/product visibility and returns a score. It specifies the verb (probe), resource (LLMs), subject (entity), and output format (score per model). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly mentioning use cases like AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, and competitive monitoring, which distinguishes it from other tools like 'ask_pipeworx' 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 clear context for when to use the tool: for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, and competitive monitoring. It also explains the default model (Workers AI) and the optional Anthropic model with a BYO key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or mention specific alternatives, though the use cases help guide appropriate usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by explaining that the tool routes to 3,899 tools, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, and is a one-call default entry point. No contradictions detected.

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 key guidance in bold and uses examples. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose. The structure efficiently communicates both when to use and when not 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains return behavior (structured answer with citation URIs) and provides alternative tool guidance. It covers the tool's broad scope and its role as a default entry point, meeting the completeness needs for a complex 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%, with each parameter described as an alias for 'question' and a natural language query. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, though it provides examples that clarify usage. 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 explicitly states the tool's function: routing questions to authoritative data sources across 3,899 tools and 932 sources. It uses specific verbs like 'routes', 'fills arguments', 'returns structured answer', and distinguishes from siblings such as ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for factual questions, lists situations to use the tool (e.g., current data, SEC filings, FDA data), and clearly states when to step up to alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers, deep_research for broad questions). It also gives examples of user queries.

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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds detailed behavioral information: how it routes to the correct tool, extracts answers only from results, and returns explicit refusal reasons. 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 detailed but every sentence adds essential information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and use case, and structured to convey behavior, return format, and trade-offs concisely.

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 fully specifies the return format (fields like answer, evidence, confidence, source, etc.) and failure modes. It covers all necessary context for this complex tool with many sibling alternatives.

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 all parameters being aliases for 'question.' The description adds minimal value beyond listing these aliases, noting they accept natural language. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. It distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by specifying the grounded extraction behavior and appropriate use cases.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use: 'when an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and when not to use: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' Provides clear context for decision-making.

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

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

The description extensively discloses behaviors beyond annotations: market matching confidence, parent event extraction, news fallback mechanisms, safety short-circuits for low-confidence or closed markets, wide-spread handling, and cancellation rule parsing. This provides rich transparency for agent decision-making.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections (RESPONSE SHAPES, RESOLVER CONTRACT, etc.) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While verbose, every sentence adds value; the organization aids parsing by an AI agent.

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, fan-out examples, edge cases, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: input handling, resolution logic, response structure, safety mechanisms, and special cases like closed markets or wide spreads. It leaves no critical gap.

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 significant value by explaining each parameter's purpose, providing examples for 'market', and clarifying the trade-offs of 'depth' and 'include_raw'. This exceeds the schema's minimal descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool researches Polymarket bets by pulling Pipeworx data, with specific input types (slug, URL, question text) and a detailed breakdown of its process (resolve, classify, fan-out, return evidence packet + comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage.

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 contexts are provided: 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'. It gives concrete examples of when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools, missing some exclusion 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds context on data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS) and fiscal year handling, but could mention potential latency or result 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph; every sentence adds value but could benefit from bullet points or clearer structure for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description explains return values (paired data + citation URIs). It covers both entity types, parameter constraints, and data sources, making it complete 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%. The description explains the purpose of each parameter, e.g., 'type' enum values and 'values' constraints with examples, going 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 does side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one call. It provides example queries like 'compare X and Y' and 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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' when comparing entities. Also details what each entity type (company/drug) returns and the allowed value ranges.

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: parallel decomposition, expected latency (15-60s), output format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, gaps), and that it never invents information. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, and description adds rich context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured, front-loading critical caveat (account requirement) and alternative. Each sentence adds value, but overall length is justified by depth of guidance. Minor room for tightening.

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 tool complexity and no output schema, description covers purpose, input, output expectations, and usage boundaries comprehensively. Lacks explicit output structure details (e.g., exact JSON format), but fields are described. Highly complete for a research 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 description adds valuable context: explains enum values for depth (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and notes paid plan requirement. For question, clarifies natural language and multi-part suitability. Adds meaning beyond schema labels.

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 across Pipeworx's 932 structured data sources in one call. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by specifying its use for broad/multi-part questions versus simple queries or breaking news.

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

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

Explicitly provides account requirement and alternative (ask_pipeworx for unsigned users). Describes best use cases (structured data, multi-part) and when not to use (breaking news, single lookups). Includes concrete examples of research questions.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns top-N tools with full schemas and that results are ready to call directly, beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, then lists domains and key features. Somewhat verbose with domain list but still efficient and well-structured.

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 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, return format (names, descriptions, schemas), and readiness to call. It adequately informs the agent without needing an output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond mentioning examples, but does not contradict. 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 finds tools by describing data or task, lists many domains, and distinguishes itself as a discovery tool among sibling tools that perform specific actions.

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 when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set'. Provides clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude cases or name 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 show readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by disclosing that patents via USPTO will sunset May 2025 and soft-fails until reactivated, and that it fans across multiple sources. This goes beyond annotations but does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph but is information-dense. It starts with example queries, then states purpose, lists sources, and details return fields. Every sentence contributes. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains clear and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sources, multiple return types), the description covers inputs (ticker/CIK, type), output fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI), and limitations (patent sunset). There is no output schema, but the description adequately describes what the agent can expect.

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

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

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds examples (e.g., 'AAPL', '0000320193'), explains why names are not supported, and clarifies that only 'company' type is supported. This enriches the schema meaning and guides proper usage.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns a full cross-source profile of a US public company. It uses specific verbs ('profile', 'fans out') and lists resources. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_entities' and 'resolve_entity' by saying 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups' and 'use resolve_entity first if you only have a name'.

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: for holistic company view with ticker/CIK. Also says when not to use: names not supported, and provides alternative: resolve_entity. It also advises to prefer this over chaining individual lookups, giving clear context for tool choice.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description aligns but adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating deletion. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with the action first, followed by usage context. 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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and pairing, leaving no gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single 'key' parameter. Tool description does not add 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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') and pairs with related tools ('Pair with remember and recall').

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds specific steps (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, outputs markdown) and clarifies output format, going beyond annotation hints.

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 concise: three sentences plus a bullet list of use cases. Front-loaded with the main action and structured for quick scanning. No superfluous 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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema, rich annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does, how it works, and what the output is. The explanation of output as 'single text blob' is sufficient without an output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. Description mentions extracted elements (title, description, key links) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 the tool generates an llms.txt file for any URL, explaining the process (fetch, extract, emit) and use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on generating the standard file.

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 explicitly lists three use cases (getting client's site indexed, drafting own project, auditing competitor). While it doesn't directly say when not to use it, the context is clear and provides guidance on 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=false. Description adds specific return fields and default behavior (active subscriptions). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, and return fields. 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% with description for include_inactive. Description does not elaborate beyond schema, making it baseline adequate.

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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates return fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel' – provides context for 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 are all false, but the description adds critical context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, does not count against tool-call quota. 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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by scenarios, guidance, and constraints in a compact 4-sentence structure. 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter details, rate limits, and quota, making it fully informative.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful usage guidance for each parameter (e.g., enum meanings, context structure, message formatting constraints), exceeding 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 explicitly states the verb ('tell') and resource ('Pipeworx team'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on feedback submission rather than data retrieval.

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 specific use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides explicit guidance on what to include and exclude (e.g., not pasting end-user prompts), plus mentions rate limits and quota.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. Description adds important behavioral traits: derived from CF analytics-engine, no PII, only (pack, tool, count) data, and caching behavior (5min-1h). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear lead sentence, followed by use cases, then technical details. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose for a simple tool. Could be trimmed but still highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, 1-param, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It explains data source, privacy, caching, and usage context. No missing information relevant to tool invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter having an enum and description. The description adds semantic value by explaining the trade-off between shorter (hot now) and longer (steady-state) windows, enriching the agent's 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 it returns 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window', which is a specific verb('Returns') and resource. The title 'Pipeworx Trending' aligns with this purpose. Among siblings, it is distinct from 'discover_tools' (general discovery) and 'ask_pipeworx' (question answering).

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?

Three explicit use cases are listed: (1) discovering hot data sources for current events, (2) confirming a popular tool is the canonical choice, (3) seeing alignment with agent needs. Also explains when to use shorter vs longer windows, providing clear context for selection.

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

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond these by detailing the internal checks: monotonicity violation detection, partition-sum approximation, Jaccard similarity filter, placeholder filtering, and fill checks against CLOB depth. It also mentions that realizable_edge_pp <= 0 means the opportunity is not tradable. This provides extensive transparency without contradicting 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 fairly long and packs many details. It is well-structured with sections and bolded terms, but could be more concise by splitting into a brief summary and detailed behavior. However, given the complexity of the tool, the length is justified.

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 is provided, so the description must explain return values. It does so by listing the fields in `opportunities[]` (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context) and detailing the `partition_check` object. It also includes the fill check logic and references the sibling tool polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. This makes the description complete for an agent to understand inputs, outputs, and behaviors.

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 each parameter already has a description, but the tool description adds substantial meaning: it explains the difference between event mode and topic mode, gives concrete examples of slugs and seed questions, and describes how each parameter is used in the arbitrage detection logic. This goes well beyond the schema's attribute-level descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between single-event mode (using an event slug) and cross-event mode (using a topic string), providing specific examples. This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_fill_risk.

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 warns that the tool requires one of `event` or `topic` and that calling with no arguments fails. It recommends the event mode for specific markets and describes when to use the topic mode for cross-event scanning, noting that it catches patterns missed by single-event mode. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, the guidance is clear and covers the main use cases.

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?

Given annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, etc., the description adds substantial behavioral details: the three segments, model families, edge calculation with slippage, Kelly sizing, caching at KV level, and diagnostics explaining empty segments. This goes well 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 very long and dense, mixing all-caps sections within a single paragraph. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose, the technical detail might overwhelm agents. Some pruning could improve readability without losing 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics), edge fields, and why segments may be empty. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to understand and 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance for key parameters like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp, explaining the rationale (e.g., 'Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities'). This extra context elevates the score.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans top Polymarket markets to find opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It uses specific verbs and resource identification, and it is distinct from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage or bet_research.

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 it is built for 'what should I bet on today' and helps agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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 and idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: snapshot TTL (60-day), decay computation (daily closes), gap days where no snapshots exist, and response structure details (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). 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 front-loaded with purpose and structured in a logical flow (purpose, args, response). While somewhat verbose, each sentence provides necessary information. Could be slightly tightened but remains 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 having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and includes important constraints (TTL, gap days, decay computation). This completeness covers the tool's complexity well.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates defaults and clamps (days: default 14, max 30; window: default '1wk') but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' built from daily snapshots, answering a specific question about how long edges exist and whether they are shrinking. It distinguishes itself from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series and decay analysis, making its purpose specific and actionable.

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 context on when to use the tool (to differentiate between fresh and old edges) and includes constraints like lookback days and snapshot families. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it walks the ladder, returns detailed fill info (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and warns about forced directional risk. It does not contradict 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 relatively long (~200 words) but well-structured with clear sections for single-market and basket modes. It front-loads the requirement and purpose. While a bit verbose, every sentence provides valuable information, and the structure aids readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields for both modes (verdict, fill details, profit_usd, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk, etc.). It covers edge cases like thin legs and unhedged directional risk, making the tool's behavior thoroughly 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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains the dual-mode usage of 'market' vs 'event', the interpretation of 'size_usd' (spend, target proceeds, settlement notional), and the default behavior for 'side' in basket mode (auto based on partition sum).

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, providing specific verbs and resources. It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on risk assessment before acting.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use the tool: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500. It warns against relying on theoretical overrounds on thin books and explains the risk of partial basket fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position.

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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations: two modes of operation, safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross_type/subtype), and explanation of what happens when bet shapes aren't equivalent. No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint all align.

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 verbose but well-structured: starts with core purpose, then modes, then response details, then safety fields. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but for the complexity it is appropriate. Front-loaded with key 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?

No output schema, so description fully explains return values: leg-by-leg prices, matched spreads, compatibility_warning cases, temporal_alignment, and skipped counters. Covers edge cases and limitations. Complete for a complex cross-venue tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining the two modes and how parameters interact (topic vs explicit tickers). It clarifies that topic auto-fetches matching events and explicit tickers override. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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

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

Clearly states it computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. Describes two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and explains what the spread represents. Distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

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?

Explains when to use: to compare prices of the same outcome across venues. Warns that pre-mapped topics often aren't tradeable via compatibility_warning. Does not explicitly list alternatives but context implies intra-venue tools exist. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but safety fields help.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the dual behavior (retrieve one vs list all) and scoping to identifier, which goes 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 concise: three sentences front-loaded with the main action, then usage context and pairing. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and scope. It adequately enables correct invocation, though output format is implied rather than explicit.

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 reinforces the schema's note about omitting key to list all. No added semantics beyond what's already in the input 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 retrieves a saved value or lists all keys, using specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'a value previously saved via remember'. It distinguishes from siblings like remember and forget by explicitly pairing with them.

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 mentions use cases like looking up user's target ticker, address, or research notes, and explains scoping. Also suggests pairing with remember and forget, but does not include explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports by describing a read-only retrieval operation. The description adds value by explaining return fields (source, citation_uri, payload), the effect of mark_read, and that polling is safe, going 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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. Every sentence adds information about usage, filtering, or alternatives, with no redundant or unnecessary 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return structure, filtering options, mark_read behavior, and even an alternative access method. However, it does not explicitly mention the unread_only parameter (present in schema), which is a minor gap. For a tool with no output schema, the description is otherwise thorough.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning by providing examples for type (e.g., 'sec_8k') and since (ISO timestamp) and explaining the mark_read behavior. This enhances understanding beyond the schema without repeating it.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool pulls 'fired events from your subscription feed' and returns the most recent alerts. It specifies the resource (subscription feed) and verb (pull), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or ask_pipeworx by focusing on event retrieval.

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 includes 'Polls work fine' and mentions an alternative URL, providing some context for repeated use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., for historical alerts or subscription management) and does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations: parallel fan-out, fallback mechanisms, soft-fail for USPTO, and output structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent.

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 that is front-loaded with examples and packed with essential information. 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, the description fully describes the return format and covers behavior of all sources, fallback, and edge cases. 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining `since` formats (ISO date or relative) with examples, and notes `value` can be ticker or CIK. Exceeds baseline.

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, listing specific query examples and multiple data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile'.

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 on when to use this tool versus 'entity_profile', explains fallback behavior, and recommends typical `since` values like '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?

Beyond annotations, description adds scoping (identifier), persistence differences (authenticated vs anonymous, 24-hour expiry). No contradiction with annotations. Could clarify overwrite behavior but still valuable.

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?

Relatively concise at 5 sentences, front-loads purpose. Every sentence contributes. Could be slightly tighter but well-structured.

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 and description does not mention return value. Lacks info on success indicators or error handling. For a simple store tool, this is a gap; adequate in other respects.

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 tool description provides example formats for key and says value is 'any text', but mostly reiterates schema. Adds limited new 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 clearly states the tool saves data for reuse across conversations, with specific examples (ticker, address, preference). It distinguishes from siblings like recall and forget by mentioning them.

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 when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. Mentions pairing with recall/forget. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but provides clear 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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally, which is useful behavioral 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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses examples efficiently. 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 no output schema, the description details return values (ticker, CIK, company name for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand for drug) and explains internal cascading. This provides complete context for using the 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% for two parameters. The description enriches the schema with examples (e.g., ticker, CIK, name for company) and clarifies accepted formats, adding value without repeating 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 resolves a name to an official identifier, with specific examples (ticker, CIK, RxCUI). It distinguishes from siblings by listing supported types and noting it replaces multiple 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 says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining internal details (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks, returns score/confidence/signal density). It does not contradict 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no fluff. Every sentence adds 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides necessary behavioral details (internal use of ai_visibility_check, ranking, output fields) and context (competitive audit use, entity conventions). It feels complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters described). The description adds significant semantic value for the 'entities' parameter (first entry is subject, rest competitors). For other parameters, it adds little beyond schema, but overall the extra context raises the score above baseline 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check and ranking by score. It distinguishes from the sibling ai_visibility_check by being multi-entity. The verb 'compare' and resource 'AI visibility' are specific.

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 a concrete use case for competitive AI-marketing audits and explains the role of the first entity. It implies when to use this tool (comparing multiple entities) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings.

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, etc.), the description discloses partial failures, grace degradation, potential 5-30s delay for bundlephobia's first measurement, and that sources_failed will list timeouts. This is valuable behavioral context.

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?

While the description is a single paragraph, it efficiently covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, ecosystem scope, return fields, and failure behavior. Every sentence adds value, though slight restructuring could improve readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return data (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions), ecosystem limitations, and partial failure handling. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, 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?

The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: a composite check for evaluating npm packages, listing specific sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and the types of information returned. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the NPM-only scope in v1 and directing other ecosystems to deps.dev:version directly.

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 guidance: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me".' It also specifies limitations (NPM only, bundlephobia timing issues) and implies alternatives for other ecosystems.

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, open-world. Description adds rich behavioral details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation and flagging, and return of character offsets and similarity scores. Fully transparent.

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, each with distinct value. Front-loaded with purpose. No redundancy. Covers what, when, how, and caveats efficiently.

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 explains what is returned (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). Covers model details, windowing, size limit, and pairing with sibling. Complete given tool complexity of 3 params and 25+ siblings.

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% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds extra context: clarifies that 'text' is the document to search inside, gives examples for 'query', and mentions default for 'limit' (5). Slightly enhances understanding 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 performs semantic search inside a fetched record. Uses specific verbs ('search inside') and resources ('SEC 10-K body, article, long tool result'). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded by emphasizing context savings and location offsets.

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 when to use: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. Provides context on how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true contradicts the description's implication that each call creates a new subscription with a new ID (non-idempotent). The description does not clarify idempotency behavior. It does disclose other behavioral traits (OAuth requirement, delivery limits) but the contradiction is a significant flaw.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with clear sections for types and delivery channels. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists between description and schema details.

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 covers prerequisites, all supported types with examples, delivery channel details and limits (sms 10/day cap), and notes return value. This is thorough for a complex subscription creation 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%, yet the description adds substantial value by providing concrete examples of type-specific params (e.g., sec_8k with items codes, polymarket_edge with topic). This goes far beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create a proactive monitoring subscription'), the resource ('live-data event stream'), and the return value ('Returns the new subscription id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe by focusing on creation.

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 concrete guidance on prerequisites (OAuth account), supported subscription types with examples, and delivery channel options. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (unsubscribe, list_subscriptions) implies usage boundaries.

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 describing that the output includes category-bucketed example questions drawn from a live catalog. Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, etc.), and the description is consistent.

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 informative without being verbose, starting with user intent phrasing and then detailing functionality. Every sentence contributes value, though slightly long.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, when to use, parameter usage, and output nature. No gaps.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds examples and clarifies usage: 'Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic (e.g. 'finance') to focus.' This adds practical 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 clearly states the tool is an onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes. It includes specific verb phrases and distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_tools and 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 says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' Provides clear context for when to use, though no explicit when-not 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 provide basic hints (idempotent, not destructive) but description adds key behavioral detail: row is deactivated (not deleted) so historical events remain available. 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded action and resource, followed by ownership and behavioral 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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership constraints, and side effects (deactivation vs deletion) completely.

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 id parameter described. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents 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?

Clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from subscribe and mentions ownership enforcement.

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 ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and mentions alternative for historical events via recent_alerts, providing good usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared to siblings, but 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral details: uses SEC EDGAR + XBRL, returns specific verdicts with citation and delta, replaces 4-6 sequential calls. No contradiction, and provides 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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded. Most sentences add value: examples, scope, output summary, efficiency note. Could trim the list of example phrasings slightly, but otherwise well-structured.

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 adequately covers return values (verdict, extracted form, actual value with citation, delta). It explains domain, data source, and replaces multiple calls. Complete for a focused tool with one parameter.

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 baseline 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, which already explains the claim parameter with examples. However, it reinforces the natural-language aspect.

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 precisely states the tool validates natural-language claims against authoritative sources, with specific examples and domain scope (company-financial claims). It clearly distinguishes from siblings 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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and limits to company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL. Could be more explicit about when not to use or compare with sibling tools, but the domain restriction implies boundaries.

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