Chainlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool routes across 300+ sources, picks the right tool, fills arguments, and returns results. However, it lacks details on error handling, ambiguity resolution, rate limits, or what happens if no source matches, leaving gaps.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph but includes purpose, usage guidance, examples, and source list. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for examples). It is dense but not excessively long.

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

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

Given only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, examples, and data sources. It lacks information about fallbacks or limitations, but overall provides sufficient context for a routing tool to be used effectively.

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

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

The only parameter is 'question' with schema description 'Your question or request in natural language.' The description adds value by listing example queries (e.g., 'What is the US trade deficit with China?'), which helps the agent understand expected input formats beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool answers natural-language questions by automatically selecting the appropriate data source. It specifies a verb ('answer') and resource ('question'), and provides multiple examples. The tool is distinct from siblings like compare_entities or discover_tools, as it serves as a general query router.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when a user asks... and you don't want to figure out which Pipeworx pack/tool to call,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly name alternatives, though the sibling list implies other tools exist.

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

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

Discloses data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA/clinicaltrials.gov for drugs) and return type (paired data + citation URIs). No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; it covers main behaviors but omits rate limits or error handling.

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 a single, efficient paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and key use cases. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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

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

With no output schema, the description partially explains return data ('paired data + citation URIs') but lacks details on the structure (e.g., fields, format). Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete but could benefit from output format hints.

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 context about what data each type fetches (revenue, income, etc. vs. adverse events), and provides examples for values, enriching the schema beyond bare enums and arrays.

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 2-5 companies or drugs side by side, with specific verbs 'compare', and distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile (single entity) and validate_claim (claim validation) by focusing on batch comparisons.

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 use-case triggers ('compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', etc.) and separates company vs drug usage. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., use entity_profile for single entity) or when not to use, but the guidance is clear for typical 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?

The description reveals key behavioral traits: it returns 'the top-N most relevant tools with names + descriptions.' Since annotations are not provided, the description carries the full burden. While it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, for a search/discovery tool of this nature, the disclosed behavior is sufficient and does not contradict any annotations.

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

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

The description is concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage context, lists example domains, and ends with the output format and strategic advice. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (no output schema, 2 parameters), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what to provide as input, and what to expect as output. It is self-contained and fully prepares an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The input schema has descriptions for both parameters (query and limit), and the description adds value by providing examples of natural language queries (e.g., 'analyze housing market trends'). This enhances the understanding beyond the schema's description. With schema coverage at 100%, the description provides additional context, justifying a score above baseline.

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

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

The description states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies the verb 'find' and the resource 'tools', and distinguishes from sibling tools by listing examples of data domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.) that are not covered by specific siblings. This makes it easy for an agent to understand when to use this tool versus others like 'entity_profile' or 'compare_entities'.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: ...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear guidance on when to use it and implies that it should not be used when a specific tool is already known, effectively differentiating from sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns: SEC filings, fundamentals, patents, news, and LEI with citation URIs. It also notes that only 'company' type is supported. It lacks mention of being read-only or non-destructive, but that is implied.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and is concise. Each sentence adds value: specific use cases, return contents, parameter clarification. 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?

No output schema, but description explains return contents well. It covers main data categories but omits details like pagination, limits, or error cases. Given the tool's complexity, it is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that 'value' can be a ticker or CIK, and that names are not supported, along with examples. This clarifies 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get everything about a company in one call.' It lists specific use cases and examples like 'tell me about X', 'give me a profile of Acme', effectively distinguishing it from the need to call many sibling tools.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (user asks for company info) and when not to: 'Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.' It provides clear alternatives and 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool filters based on the https_only parameter, but does not mention other behaviors like error handling, caching, or what happens when the chain is not found.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear parameter detail. 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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about the return format, error behavior, and how the chain identifier is used.

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 50% (only https_only has a description). The description adds meaning to https_only by explaining its filtering effect, but provides no extra info for chain_id_or_short_name beyond its name and requirement.

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 'Return' and the resource 'RPC endpoints for a chain', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_chain' and 'list_chains' which focus on chain details rather than endpoints.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the function without specifying contexts or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states deletion without discussing irreversibility, side effects, or error states.

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 focused sentences with no redundancy. The key information is front-loaded and every word 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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meaning adequately.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's description of the key parameter. Baseline score due to high coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb (delete), resource (memory), and method (by key). It differentiates from sibling tools like remember and recall.

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

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

Provides explicit use cases (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and suggests pairing with remember and recall, though it doesn't address when not to use.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input types but does not mention error handling, return format, or whether the tool is read-only. For a simple fetch, this is adequate but not highly transparent.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and examples. Every part is necessary and there is no waste.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: the purpose, the identifier formats, and examples. No additional context is required.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete examples ('eth', 'matic', 'arb1') and clarifying that chainId is a number passed as string. It enhances 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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single chain'), and the two identifier types (chainId or shortName) with examples. It differentiates from sibling 'list_chains' by specifying 'single' versus likely multiple.

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 indicates when to use the tool (when you have a chainId or shortName), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_chains' for enumerating all chains.

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?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only indicates read-like behavior ('browse') but does not disclose idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at four words, front-loading the purpose. It is not verbose, but could benefit from slightly more detail without harming conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional filter params) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but missing details on return format, pagination, or default behavior. Completeness is average.

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

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

Input schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, hence 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's action ('Browse or filter') and resource ('EVM chain registry'). It is comprehensible but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_chain or find_rpc, which could be confusing.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and does not count against the tool-call quota. It also mentions the consequence of use ('signal directly affects roadmap'). No contradictions are present.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds essential information (usage conditions, what to include, behavior constraints). No unnecessary words 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage criteria, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and even the impact of usage. The agent has all necessary information to decide when and how 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the enum values in context (e.g., 'bug = something broke or returned wrong data') and providing guidance on message content ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs') and a 2000 char limit. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb ('tell') and resource ('Pipeworx team'), and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on feedback rather than queries or data retrieval.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, praise) and provides exclusions ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). It also gives context on rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day') and quota impact, which helps the agent decide when to invoke this 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discusses scoping to identifiers and retrieval behavior, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. Implication is sufficient.

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 fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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

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

No output schema, but description does not detail return format. However, for a simple retrieval tool, the description is fairly complete. Minor gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the key parameter's dual role (omit to list) and reinforcing scoping context.

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

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

Description clearly states verb 'retrieve' and 'list', resource 'values saved via remember', and scope. Distinguishes from siblings by naming '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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' Mentions pairing with remember and forget, providing clear context for use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it fans out to multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT, USPTO) in parallel, explains the return structure, and details the 'since' parameter formats. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but the read-only nature is clear.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, uses examples, and is tightly written with no superfluous sentences. Every sentence provides necessary context.

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 and modest complexity, the description adequately covers inputs, behavior, and return format. It lacks mention of error handling or result limits, but is otherwise 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value beyond the schema by providing examples for 'since' (ISO and relative), noting that 'type' only supports 'company', and explaining 'value' with ticker or CIK 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 'What's new with a company in the last N days/months?' and provides explicit query examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile by focusing on changes over time.

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

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

The description gives concrete usage examples and mentions monitoring context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternative sibling tools, though it implies contrast with static profile 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that data is stored as key-value pairs, scoped by identifier, with persistence details (authenticated users get persistent memory, anonymous sessions retain for 24 hours). It also mentions pairing with recall and forget, providing complete behavioral context.

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral details.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, when to use, storage behavior, persistence, and how to pair with siblings. No gaps remain.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both key (with examples) and value (any text). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool saves data for reuse, specifies the resource (data), and distinguishes itself from siblings recall and forget by mentioning pairing. It uses a specific verb 'save' and clarifies scope ('across conversations or sessions').

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 you discover something worth carrying forward') and provides examples (ticker, address, preference). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the positive guidance is clear and references sibling tools for retrieval and deletion.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what IDs are returned (CIK, ticker, RxCUI, LEI) and that pipeworx:// citation URIs are included. It mentions it replaces 2–3 lookup calls. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, though that is implied.

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 of five sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, examples, and guidance. Every sentence adds information without redundancy or fluff.

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

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

Given the simple parameter set (2 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what input types are expected, what output is returned (IDs and URIs), and usage ordering. It could be more precise about the output structure, but it is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing context on the types of IDs returned and examples (e.g., 'Apple' → AAPL / CIK 0000320193). This goes beyond the schema's enum and format hints.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up the canonical/official identifier for a company or drug.' It specifies the verb (look up) and resource (identifiers), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining that it replaces multiple lookups and should be used before tools needing official IDs.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a user mentions a name and you need the CIK, ticker, RxCUI, or LEI.' It also provides ordering guidance: 'Use this BEFORE calling other tools that need official identifiers.' Examples are given, making usage 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?

No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the return structure (verdict, extracted form, actual value with citation, percent delta) and mentions it replaces 4-6 sequential calls. No destructive behavior implied; transparency is good for a read-only tool.

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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the action, and packs essential information (purpose, usage, input, output, scope) 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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, outputs, and limitations. It explains the return format and scope, making it complete for an agent to decide 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters. Description adds meaning beyond schema: specifies the type of claim (natural-language, factual) and gives examples. It also restricts domain to company-financial claims, guiding the agent on what inputs are valid.

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 specific verb+resource: 'validate claim against authoritative sources'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx and compare_entities by focusing on fact-checking natural-language claims, with explicit domain scope.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use when an agent needs to check whether something a user said is true' with examples. It also notes the current scope (company-financial claims for public US companies), implicitly telling when not to use. Missing explicit 'when not to use' but still clear.

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