Cftc Cot

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description discloses that probing is non-destructive, returns per-model results with a combined view, and mentions cost implications for Anthropic calls. 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then details. Every sentence 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?

Although no output schema exists, the description enumerates return fields (score, confidence, signals, raw_response) and mentions cost/API key handling. This is complete for a probing tool with no nested objects.

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 adds meaning: default model, API key passed straight through, context for disambiguation. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states it probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility (0-100) per model. It provides specific use cases like AI-marketing audits and brand checks, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on multi-model visibility scoring.

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 specifies the default model (Workers AI) and when to include an API key for Anthropic. It implies usage for marketing audits and brand checks, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative 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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant value by detailing that the tool routes to 3,725 tools across 881 sources, fills arguments automatically, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. This level of detail about internal behavior is highly transparent and 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 relatively long but front-loaded with the key instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). It uses bullet-style listing of domains and examples, making it scannable. Every sentence adds value, but the length could be slightly reduced without losing meaning. Still, it is well-structured for an agent to process.

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 but only 1 required, many aliases), the description is complete. It explains the tool's broad coverage, query mechanism, and output format (structured answer with citation URIs). No output schema is provided, but the description adequately describes the return value. The tool is a general-purpose query router, and the description covers all necessary aspects.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each alias, so the schema alone is clear. The description adds value by stating the parameter is a natural language question and providing examples, but it does not add much beyond the schema's own descriptions. Given the high schema coverage, a score of 4 is appropriate for the contextual examples.

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's purpose: answering factual questions about current/historical data from authoritative sources. It uses specific verbs ('routes', 'returns') and distinguishes itself from web search, providing concrete examples of use cases (SEC filings, FDA data, etc.). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and lists when to use the tool (factual questions about real-world entities, events, numbers). It gives clear examples like 'current US unemployment rate' and 'Apple's latest 10-K', and mentions alternatives implicitly by contrasting with web search. This provides strong guidance on when and when not to use the tool.

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

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

Goes far beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent) by explaining extraction from tool results only, refusal reasons, and cost tradeoff. 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?

Single paragraph, information-dense but well-structured. Every sentence adds value, though slightly long. Good front-loading of purpose.

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

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

Despite no output schema, describes return format fully (answer, evidence, refusal_reason, etc.), explains behavior, and notes cost. Complete 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 coverage is 100% with all params aliases for question. Description clarifies aliases but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

Describes a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' that extracts answers from tool results only. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by noting extra caution and cost.

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 (quoted/cited/acted-on answers, high-stakes) and when not (prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups), with alternative tool named.

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 extensive behavioral traits beyond annotations: resolution process, fan-out logic, response shapes, safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuit, closed market handling), cancellation rules, and more. All disclosures are consistent with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint 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 packs a lot of information, but it is front-loaded with purpose and usage. While comprehensive, it could be more concise by trimming redundant examples and classifier lists. The structure is logical but verbose.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, rich behaviors), the description is exceptionally thorough. It covers resolution, fan-out, response shapes, safety mechanisms, edge cases, and even cancellation rules. It fully compensates for the lack of 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds little extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as reiterating the market input types. It does not elaborate on depth or include_raw beyond their defaults.

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: to research a Polymarket bet by pulling relevant Pipeworx data in one call. It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and mentions classifiers and fan-out examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_edges, leaving some ambiguity.

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: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z"'. It also provides examples of market types and corresponding fan-out. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for edge detection which is covered by a sibling tool.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotent, no destructive) are present. The description adds rich behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with citation URIs. 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 dense but efficient, front-loading with user-friendly query examples. Every sentence contributes unique information (data sources, sorting, performance advantage). While slightly long, it earns its length by covering multiple entity types and behaviors 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?

Given the two-parameter input schema and no output schema, the description covers core behaviors: data sources per type, number of entities (2–5), sorting, and citation URIs. It does not detail the exact output structure but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand expected 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 both parameters documented. The description substantially enriches meaning: it explains what 'company' vs 'drug' type entails (financials vs adverse-event/trial data), specifies input formats (tickers/CIKs or drug names), and clarifies constraints (2–5 items). This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description opens with concrete query examples like 'Compare X and Y' and 'X vs Y', then explicitly states it performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs. It details the specific data pulled for each entity type (SEC EDGAR financials for companies, FAERS/trial counts for drugs), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like entity_profile or 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 strongly advises preferring this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. It provides clear context for when to use (comparing 2–5 companies or drugs) but does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for single-entity 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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral context: decomposition, parallel execution, citation format, gaps for unanswered facets, expected 15-60s runtime, and account/plan requirements. 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 dense but well-structured, front-loaded with key benefit. Every sentence serves a purpose: process, output, usage, prerequisites, timing. 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?

Given tool complexity and no output schema, description is complete: covers purpose, process, output, usage, limitations (gaps, paid plan), timing, and prerequisites. An agent can fully understand how to use 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?

Schema coverage 100%, but description enriches both parameters: explains depth enum values and default, notes paid plan requirement for 'thorough', and clarifies that question can be broad/multi-part. Adds 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?

The description clearly states the tool does 'Grounded multi-source research in ONE call', with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning decomposition into sub-questions, parallel routing to 3,725 tools, and contrasting with ask_pipeworx for single 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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use for broad or multi-part questions' with examples, and 'use ask_pipeworx for single lookups'. Also mentions prerequisites (Pipeworx account) and depth payment requirements.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that results include names, descriptions, and full schemas with curated examples, ready to call directly.

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?

Efficient, well-structured: purpose, usage suggestion, return details. 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 discovery tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, description explains what's returned (top-N tools with schemas) and when to call it, making it completely contextual.

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 context on query parameter semantics: natural language description, lists aliases, and provides examples.

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

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

The description clearly states it finds tools by describing data or task, listing many domains. It distinguishes itself as a meta-tool for discovering other tools, not a specific data tool.

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: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set'. No need for when-not as it's self-contained.

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, destructiveHint. Description adds context: fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields, notes patent soft-fail and name requirement, 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?

Description is somewhat verbose with example intents, but front-loads purpose and is structured well. Could be slightly more concise, but appropriate for 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 no output schema, description fully explains return fields, sources, fallbacks (patent soft-fail), and limitations (names not supported). Covers all necessary context.

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 meaning: explains type enum only 'company', value accepts ticker or CIK, examples provided, and clarifies names not supported.

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 'full cross-source profile of a US public company' using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly preferring over chaining and referencing resolve_entity for names.

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 when-to-use ('when user asks for a holistic view'), when-not-to-use ('names not supported – use resolve_entity first'), and alternatives ('chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups').

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minor context about clearing sensitive data but doesn't contradict.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and pairing with sibling tools.

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 key description. The description adds no extra 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 states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'memory by key', distinguishing it from siblings 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 provides when to use: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. Also pairs 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?

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it describes the process (fetch page, extract title/description/key links), the output format (standard llms.txt markdown), and the final placement (site-root/llms.txt). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive nature, and the description aligns perfectly with 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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, efficiently explains the process and output, and ends with concrete use cases. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the process, output format, and use cases adequately. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or prerequisites (e.g., URL accessibility), but for a simple read-only tool with no output schema, this is acceptable and mostly 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (url and max_links). The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, listing specific actions (fetch, extract, emit) and explicit use cases (client indexing, own project, competitor auditing). It effectively distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output and purpose.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases in the 'Useful for' section (client indexing, own project, competitor auditing), which helps the agent decide when to invoke. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements but offers sufficient context for tool selection among many 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the returned data: open interest, long/short/net for three trader categories, and changes. It does not mention data freshness beyond 'most recent weekly', but covers key behavioral aspects.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage instruction and return details. No extraneous information, 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers input requirements (market name from search_markets) and return data (trader categories and changes). Sibling tools are also listed, providing context for when to use 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?

The schema covers the single parameter with a description that matches the tool description's guidance. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the most recent weekly COT positioning for one futures market, specifying the resource (COT data), verb ('latest'), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_markets' (which returns market names) by focusing on the actual report data.

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 instructs to pass 'market_and_exchange_names from search_markets' with examples, guiding the agent on prerequisite steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for historical data), missing full exclusion criteria.

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 that it lists active subscriptions only unless include_inactive is set, and details return fields—adding value beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence conveys purpose and output, second gives usage guidance.

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?

Tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema). Description lists return fields and usage context, adequate for agent decision. Missing details like pagination or limits, but not critical.

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

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

Schema covers the single parameter (include_inactive) completely. Description mentions it but doesn't add meaningful extra detail beyond the schema description.

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

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

Description explicitly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates return fields (id, type, params, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe/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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear given 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 the annotations (which are all false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and does not count against tool-call quota. This adds useful context about usage constraints.

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 each sentence adds value. No fluff or 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?

The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, constraints, and quota information. As a feedback tool without an output schema, it is complete and well-suited for agent decision-making.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (type enum, context object, message). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the usage context but does not significantly expand on parameter 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to send feedback about bugs, features, data gaps, or praise. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are feedback-related.

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 specific when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and includes a prohibition on pasting end-user prompts. Rate limit and quota information are also given, but explicit when-not-to-use alternatives are missing.

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, openWorldHint=true. Description adds that signal is self-aggregating from CF analytics, no PII, cached 5min-1h. 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: purpose first, then bulleted use cases, then technical details. Each sentence adds value; 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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers: what is returned (top tools, top packs, volume), behavior (aggregated, no PII, cached), and usage advice. 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 covers 'window' with enum and description. Description explains that shorter windows show current hotness, longer show steady-state demand, adding practical usage 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?

Description starts with 'What other AI agents are calling on Pipeworx right now', clearly stating the tool returns trending tools, packs, and call volume. This distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, etc., all of which serve different purposes.

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 use cases: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choice, and checking alignment. Also notes caching behavior and window interpretation. Could mention when not to use, but context 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details such as the fill check (realizable vs theoretical edge) and the requirement to avoid trading when realizable edge is zero, 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 comprehensive but somewhat lengthy and could be more structured. However, it front-loads the requirement and purpose, and each sentence adds value. Minor room for conciseness improvement.

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 explains the structure of the response (opportunities array, partition_check, fill_check). It covers modes, constraints, and edge cases (placeholder filtering, similarity check), making it complete for agent 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 both parameters described. The description adds semantic depth: 'event' walks child markets and checks ordering/partition; 'topic' cross-references related events with Jaccard similarity threshold, enriching parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_edges and 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 notes that one of event or topic is required and advises on appropriate use: 'event (recommended for a specific market)' and 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. It also points to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, providing an alternative.

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 extensive behavioral context: caching (1h KV keyed on knobs), internal funnel logic, edge calculation details (e.g., per-sport alpha), and why Fed bets are excluded. 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 verbose and dense, containing extensive detail that could be more efficiently organized. While front-loaded with purpose, the parameter specifics repeat schema descriptions. A more structured format (e.g., bullet points) would 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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 3 segments, multiple filters, caching, diagnostics), the description is remarkably complete. It covers caching, segment logic, tradeable-edge knobs, and Fed bets handling. Without an output schema, it compensates fully.

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%, but description adds meaningful context beyond schema. For example, 'min_edge_pp' notes edge is net of slippage, 'min_kelly' explains it skips too-small opportunities, and 'min_partition_leg_kelly' provides special context for partition arbs.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans Polymarket for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It specifies it's built for 'what should I bet on today' and distinguishes three segments. This differentiates it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edge_tracker.

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 implies usage for discovering betting opportunities and explains tradeable-edge knobs for filtering. It notes Fed bets are excluded from ranking. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it reads from daily snapshots, explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), mentions TTL and data gaps, and clarifies that decay numbers come from daily closes. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured, starting with purpose, then detailing response fields, and ending with limitations. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise by grouping some technical details, but it remains clear 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 the tool has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is highly complete. It explains the full response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), behavior parameters, and limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps). The description adequately compensates for the lack of 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. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema: it explains that 'days' is a lookback (default 14, max 30) and 'window' is the snapshot family (default '1wk'). It also clarifies the meaning of the 'window' parameter by linking to the snapshot family concept.

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: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question about edge duration and trend, and it implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical persistence rather than current edges.

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

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

The description provides a clear context for usage: when you need to know how long an edge has existed and its trend. It includes a LIMITS section that clarifies history depth and data gaps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the distinction from 'polymarket_edges' is implied.

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, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it 'walks the ladder', returns verdict ('clean|degraded|cannot_fill'), and highlights 'forced_directional_risk' in basket mode. 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?

Well-structured with an introductory sentence, distinct paragraphs for single-market and basket modes, and a concluding usage guideline. Every sentence 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?

Given the complexity of two modes and no output schema, the description details all return fields for both modes, including verdict, per-leg fills, thin_legs, and forced_directional_risk. It also covers edge cases like partial fills and the auto-detection of side in basket mode.

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 adds semantic meaning: market/event mutual exclusivity, side defaults and auto-detection in basket mode, size_usd interpretation per mode (max spend vs. target proceeds vs. settlement notional), and clamp range. This goes well beyond schema descriptions.

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

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

The description states 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, using specific verbs like 'walks the ladder' and returns detailed results such as 'top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, and a verdict'.

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 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 (implicitly for small trades) and warns about the risk of partial fills converting arb into 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?

Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent, which the description does not contradict. The description extensively details behavior: two modes, response structure, compatibility_warning triggers, temporal alignment, and skipped comparison counters. No annotation contradiction.

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

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

The description is detailed but every sentence provides necessary context about modes, safety fields, and caveats. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Slightly verbose but appropriate for 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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers purpose, modes, response fields (spreads, safety fields, skipped counters), temporal alignment, and real-world tradeability. All necessary context for correct tool use is present.

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 3 parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining mode logic, example values, and override behavior, surpassing the baseline of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same question. It specifies two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit event identifiers) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by its cross-venue focus.

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 each mode and warns that pre-mapped topics often yield compatibility warnings, implying limited tradeability. It could explicitly mention alternatives for intra-venue analysis, 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds scoping details (by identifier) and behavior when no key is provided, which adds value 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?

Three sentences: first states core operation, second gives usage examples, third adds scope and sibling pairing. No redundant words, efficient 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?

Low complexity (1 param, no output schema). Description fully covers functionality, scoping, and relationship to siblings. No missing information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter. The description explains that omitting the key lists all keys, a crucial semantic detail not in the schema description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves values saved via 'remember' or lists all keys when omitted. It provides concrete use cases (e.g., user ticker, address, research notes) and distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'forget'.

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

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

Explicit guidance on when to use (look up stored context) and how to list keys (omit key argument). Mentions pairing with remember/forget. 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds behavioral details: return format (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and the effect of mark_read. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but annotations already cover safety traits.

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 with three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no irrelevant information. 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 no output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and the mark_read effect. It does not cover unread_only or pagination (limit is in schema), but for a simple retrieval tool it is fairly 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 descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by providing examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type, ISO timestamp for since) and explaining mark_read's behavior, enriching the minimal schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed, specifying the verb 'pull' and the resource 'fired events/alerts'. It also mentions filters and mark_read behavior, making the purpose distinct from siblings which do not retrieve 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?

The description provides guidance on usage by noting that polling works fine and the same feed is available via a URL for scripts and dashboards, implying this tool is for programmatic access. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools, though no sibling directly overlaps.

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 that the tool fans out to multiple sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO), explains fallback and error handling, and describes return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). Annotations align with description, 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 moderately long but well-structured and front-loaded with examples. Each sentence adds value, though some detail 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 tool's complexity (multi-source, fallbacks, relative dates, output structure), the description is complete. It covers return format, parameter details, and behavioral notes, leaving no major 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%; description adds significant meaning by explaining 'since' formats (ISO date vs relative shorthand), providing usage examples, clarifying 'type' only supports 'company', and specifying 'value' can be ticker or CIK.

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 as a change feed for a company, with specific query examples like 'What's new with X'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'entity_profile' by explicitly advising 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for recent changes) and when not (static profile, use entity_profile). Includes typical usage for 'since' parameter ('30d' or '1m') and explains fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context: the write behavior, key-value scoping by identifier, and session-specific retention (24hrs for anonymous). 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?

Five sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, usage, scope, persistence, and companion tools. No redundancy, front-loaded with the core action.

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

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

For a simple key-value store with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what to store, when, scoping, persistence, and how to retrieve. 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by illustrating typical key-value pairs (resolved ticker, target address, etc.), going beyond schema documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' and gives concrete examples (ticker, address, preference). It differentiates from siblings recall 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?

The description explicitly says when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward' and contrasts with 'recall' and 'forget' as companion tools. It also mentions persistence differences between authenticated and anonymous sessions.

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, and destructiveHint false, signaling safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool is 'Keyless' and returns data 'most recent first', which are useful behavioral traits not in 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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, usage guideline, and use case. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no extraneous words. 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 full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input source, and use case. It lists the data fields available. Minor omission of output structure (e.g., list vs object) but still sufficient 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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the need for exact market names but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. 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 returns a weekly net-position time series for a specific futures market, including data fields (non-commercial net, commercial net, open interest). It distinguishes from siblings like search_markets (which provides the market names) and latest_report (which might be a single report). The verb and resource are explicit.

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 instructs to pass the exact market_and_exchange_names from search_markets, establishing a clear workflow. It indicates use for trend/sentiment shifts over time, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Context is clear enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context: internal cascading through multiple endpoints and that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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

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

The description is a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads user queries, states the core purpose, gives a usage directive, and details supported types. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a tool with 2 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains return formats and includes citation URIs. It could optionally mention behavior for unknown inputs, but current coverage is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful examples for the 'value' parameter (e.g., 'AAPL', 'ozempic') and explains what each type returns, enhancing understanding of parameter 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 begins with concrete examples ('ticker', 'CIK', 'RxCUI') and clearly states the verb 'resolve' and resource 'name to canonical ID'. It distinguishes itself by noting that other tools require this ID as input, making its role unambiguous.

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

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

The description explicitly directs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing strong usage guidance. It does not discuss when not to use or offer alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces results. 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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, then detail the process and use case. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given 4 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and the narrative of first entity as subject. Complete for its 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 meaning beyond schema by explaining the entity order (first is subject), default model, and purpose of each parameter in the context of comparison.

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, with specific verbs 'Compare' and 'surfaces'. It distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity) and 'compare_entities' (generic comparison) by focusing on AI visibility and ranking.

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 guides use for competitive AI-marketing audits with a concrete example question. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to or name alternatives, though the context suggests single-entity checks use ai_visibility_check.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive hints. Description adds valuable behavioral details: partial failure graceful degradation, timing for bundlephobia first measurement (5-30s), and return fields. A slight deduction for not explicitly mentioning potential rate limits, but overall strong.

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 and front-loaded with purpose, but slightly verbose. Each sentence earns its place, but could be trimmed slightly. Good structure overall.

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 (composite check), annotations (read-only, etc.), and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data sources, usage guidelines, return fields (summary block, advisories, alternatives), limitations (ecosystem, timing), and partial failure behavior. Very 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 baseline is 3. Description does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides (package name, version defaults). Minor value in reinforcing defaults, but no deeper 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 composite check for npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia, with a specific verb and resource. Although no explicit sibling differentiation, the tool is unique among siblings, so clarity is high.

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 ('is X safe / popular / small' queries) and ecosystem limitations ('NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'). Provides clear context for usage, including partial failure behavior.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate safe behavior. The description adds that the tool is 'Keyless' and returns exact names/codes, which is consistent with 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance and examples. No wasted words, 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?

For a simple search tool with complete schema, annotations, and clear usage context, the description covers all necessary information: what it does, how to use it, what it returns, and its role as a prerequisite.

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. Description provides example values for query (e.g., 'crude oil', 'gold') that add practical meaning beyond the schema's description. The limit parameter's max is also mentioned.

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' and the resource 'CFTC Commitment of Traders (COT) futures markets by name'. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it provides inputs for latest_report and report_history.

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 advises to use this tool first before other tools like latest_report and report_history. Mentions 'Keyless' as a usage note. Does not list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond annotations: returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char windows, and a 200K char cap with truncation flagging. Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent, and read-only behavior, which the description complements without contradiction.

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

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

The description is concise at 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently covers key details without fluff. 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 (semantic search, embeddings, offsets) and lack of output schema, the description covers essential aspects: return format, usage context, pairing with a sibling, and technical boundaries. It enables an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as examples for 'query' and default for 'limit', but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters 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 defines the tool as semantic search inside a fetched record, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'inside a fetched record'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing paired tool 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' and explaining the context-saving benefit.

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: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. It provides a clear use case and pairing with another tool, but lacks explicit exclusions for when not to use the tool.

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

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: requires OAuth account, type-specific parameterization, delivery channels (feed always on, optional email/sms/webhook), SMS rate limit (10/day), webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, and that webhook secret is returned only once. 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 a single dense paragraph; while information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose and requirement, it would benefit from bullet points or clearer structure for the type and delivery sections. It is not overly verbose but could be more scannable.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: required OAuth account, type-specific params, delivery channels with limits and webhook details, return value (subscription id), and links to related endpoints (recent_alerts, GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json). It is thorough and actionable.

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 description adds significant value by providing concrete examples for each type (e.g., items:["5.02"] for sec_8k, topic:"fed" for polymarket_edge), explaining webhook signing and secret retrieval, and detailing delivery restrictions (verified phone, email pattern). This goes well beyond the raw 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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns the subscription ID. It specifies the resource (subscription) and verb (create/subscribe), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_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?

The description provides explicit prerequisites (requires Pipeworx OAuth account), type selection guidance with examples for sec_8k, polymarket_edge, and fred_series, and delivery channel options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly contrast with alternatives beyond listing 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns live catalog examples and the exact tool+argument shapes, fully characterizing the output behavior.

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

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

Despite being a single paragraph, every sentence earns its place: front-loaded common queries, then explains format, parameters, and usage guidance. 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, input, output, and usage context. It also references sibling tools to differentiate.

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 adds meaning by listing possible topic values and explaining that omitting gives a cross-category spread, going beyond the schema's brief description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes, and frames it as the onboarding entry point. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the first tool to use when the agent doesn't know what Pipeworx can do.

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', and describes the optional topic parameter for focusing. It also tells how to learn to call meta-tools, providing 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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and ownership is checked, which are behavioral details 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the main action. 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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the effect, side effects (deactivation), ownership constraint, and relation to 'recent_alerts'. Slightly more detail on what happens if ownership fails could push to 5.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to elaborate much. It adds context that the id comes from 'subscribe', which is helpful. 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 'Cancel a subscription by id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying cancellation and 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?

Explicitly mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), guiding when to use. Also explains the deactivation behavior and link to 'recent_alerts', but lacks explicit comparison to alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds value by listing return values (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta) and data sources (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), but does not go into detail about failure modes or edge cases.

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 examples front-loaded, but could be slightly more concise. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and capabilities without unnecessary verbosity.

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

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

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure and domain constraints. It is complete for a tool with one parameter and clear annotations.

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. The tool description adds natural-language examples and clarifies the format, going beyond the schema's description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources, specifically for company-financial claims. It provides concrete examples and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' Implicitly restricts to company-financial claims, but 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.