Cms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: default free model, BYO key for Anthropic with cost implications, and the return structure. 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler or 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 explains the return format (per-model fields + combined view) despite no output schema. It covers scoring, model choices, and use cases. For a tool with 4 parameters and no nested objects, this is 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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about the default model and key handling, but this is more about usage than parameter semantics. The schema already provides adequate meaning for each parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Probe'), resource ('one or more LLMs'), and outcome ('score visibility 0-100 per model'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on AI 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'). It also explains the default model and optional API key for Anthropic, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct 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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: routes to specific tool, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. 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?

The description is long but well-structured, front-loading the key message and providing examples. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 (thousands of sources) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (structured answers with citations), usage tiers, and alternatives.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, including aliases. The description adds some context (natural language, examples) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it routes questions to the appropriate tool among thousands of sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by specifying when to use each.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance: prefer over web search for factual questions, use as default entry point, and step up to grounded or deep_research for specific needs. It gives examples and context about when to use and when not to.

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: structured return format with evidence and confidence, refusal mechanisms, cost of one extra LLM call, and the guarantee to only use tool results.

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 packs a lot of information efficiently. It could benefit from bullet points for the return format, but it remains concise and well-structured 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return format and refusal reasons. It also covers the routing process. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though a bit more detail on the routing could be added.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (six aliases for 'question'). Description does not add meaning beyond this, so baseline 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 it is a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains it extracts answer only from tool results. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by noting the extra cost and when to prefer each.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use: 'when an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and gives a concrete exclusion: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'. Also details refusal reasons for cases where answer cannot be provided.

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: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) indicate safety. The description adds extensive behavioral details: resolution contracts, fan-out logic, safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuit, closed market handling), and cancellation rule parsing. 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 very long and lacks clear structure. While it front-loads with a one-sentence summary, it quickly becomes a dense paragraph covering many details without formatting (e.g., bullet points). This reduces readability for an AI agent.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly covers response shapes (market, analysis, evidence), resolution contracts, parent event extraction, news fields, safety mechanisms, and cancellation rules. It handles edge cases and provides agent guidance for interpreting results.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema, such as examples of market input, depth option behavior, and include_raw usage guidance. This enriches understanding, warranting 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and gives concrete use cases. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools which focus on specific aspects like edges or arbitrage.

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

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

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 implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on general research, but does not explicitly list when not to use or provide direct comparisons 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?

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: specifies exact data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), mentions off-calendar fiscal year handling, result sorting by primary metric, and citation URI returns. 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?

Front-loaded with user-facing examples, then clear functional details. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with repetition of query patterns. Well-structured 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?

No output schema, yet description explains return format (paired data + citation URIs). Covers both entity types thoroughly for a 2-parameter tool. Annotations provide safety profile. Fully complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning by explaining the data each entity type returns (financials vs clinical) and gives examples. This goes beyond the schema's enum/purpose 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 performs side-by-side comparisons of 2–5 entities (companies or drugs) in a single parallel call. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishes from sequential lookups, and provides example queries users would naturally type.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' when comparing entities, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Implicitly excludes single entity lookups, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tool names.

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. The description adds value by listing the specific metadata fields returned (title, description, row count, dates, keywords, resources). This helps the agent understand the output structure without an output schema.

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 containing all necessary information: first sentence lists output content, second provides usage context. No redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return fields and resources. For a metadata lookup tool with a single parameter and clear annotations, this is 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 for the single parameter 'datasetId', already explaining it as a UUID from search_datasets. The description reiterates this but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description specifies the exact operation: returning metadata (title, description, row count, etc.) for a CMS dataset by datasetId. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_datasets by stating when to use it, and the verb 'inspect' clarifies the read-only nature.

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 after search_datasets to inspect a dataset before pulling rows.' This provides clear context on when to invoke. Could be improved by mentioning alternatives for pulling data (e.g., get_dataset), but the guidance is effective.

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

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: parallel decomposition, 15-60s latency, output format (findings packet with evidence/confidence/source/fetched_at/citation, gaps[]), and behavior for uncatalogued topics (empty gaps[]). 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 information-dense but slightly long. However, it is well-structured with key points front-loaded (account requirement, sibling alternative). Every sentence earns its place, though could trim minor details like exact tool count.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers constraints, usage, behavior, output, and limitations comprehensively. No gaps left for effective tool selection and 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%. Description enriches both parameters: explains depth values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and highlights question accepts natural language and broad/multi-part queries. Adds value 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?

Clearly states it performs grounded multi-source research across 1102 structured data sources in one call. Distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by specifying it is for broad/multi-part questions, not single lookups or current news.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data), when not to use (single lookup, breaking news), and provides prerequisite (account required, depth:thorough needs paid plan) with fallback (use ask_pipeworx if not signed in).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context on return behavior: returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas, examples, ready to call. 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 paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then domains, then output details. It efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (tools with names, descriptions, full schemas, examples) and provides usage context. The tool is simple with one required parameter and optional limit, and the description covers all aspects 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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining that the query accepts multiple aliases (task, q, search, description) and gives natural language examples. It also describes the limit parameter's default and max.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by advising 'Call this FIRST' when exploring options.

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: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for:' followed by domain list. Also instructs to call this tool first when many tools are available and to see the option set rather than a single answer.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant transparency by listing the data sources (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), noting the USPTO API sunset with a soft-fail, and describing the fallback mechanism. 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 fairly long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with example queries and uses structured lists for return items. While slightly verbose, it remains efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, no output schema), the description is complete. It details what is returned, data sources used, and limitations (USPTO sunset, name restriction). It does not explain the output format for all fields, but provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'type' is only 'company' (with others coming soon), providing examples for 'value' (ticker or zero-padded CIK), and clarifying that names are not supported. This goes 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's purpose: providing a full cross-source profile of a US public company in one parallel call. It uses specific verbs and examples like 'Tell me about X' and 'brief me on Tesla', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending its use over chaining single-pack lookups.

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

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

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when the user asks for a holistic view') and when not to use alternatives. It provides critical guidance that names are not supported and suggests using resolve_entity first if only a name is available.

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

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds practical usage context but no additional behavioral details beyond the annotation coverage.

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 action, and every sentence adds value (purpose 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 simple one-parameter delete tool with annotations, the description covers what it does, when to use, and related tools. Lacks details on return value or error handling, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward.

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 the only parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description reinforces 'by key' but offers no extra semantics (e.g., format, constraints). Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('previously stored memory by key'). It also mentions sibling tools ('remember' and 'recall'), distinguishing its 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: stale context, task completion, clearing sensitive data. Also mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it 'fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format,' providing behavioral context beyond 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 concise (3 sentences) with a clear front-loaded structure: first sentence states purpose, second explains process, third lists use cases. No unnecessary information.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, output format, and when to use it. It is fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., url and max_links with defaults). This meets the minimum viable threshold.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb 'generate', resource 'llms.txt file', and the target audience (AI crawlers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing specific use cases and mentioning the standard output format.

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: 'getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from related tools like 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral details: returns array of row objects, supports paging, full-text search, exact-match filters. 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 well-structured sentences front-load the purpose and provide all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence contributes 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format (array of row objects). Covers all key features: paging, keyword search, filters. Sufficient for the agent to use correctly given the rich annotations and 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 decent descriptions. The tool description adds context: filters format (e.g., {"State": "TX"}), source of datasetId, and default paging values, going beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Pull rows from a CMS dataset by datasetId', specifying the action (pull rows) and resource (CMS dataset). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_datasets, which returns dataset metadata.

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 that datasetId comes from search_datasets, guiding the agent on when to use this tool. Could be improved by noting alternatives like search_within for different filtering.

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=false. Description adds that it returns specific fields and optionally includes inactive subscriptions. No contradictions.

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

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

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

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

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

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete, covering purpose, return fields, and usage 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%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema for the include_inactive parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates return fields (id, type, params, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools subscribe and unsubscribe.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Provides clear context.

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

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

With no helpful annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free usage, not counted against tool-call quota. It explains how feedback is processed (team reads daily, affects roadmap) and provides a usage guideline ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage scenarios, a formatting guideline, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds essential information 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's simplicity (no output schema, 3 parameters with full schema coverage), the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, parameter guidance, behavioral attributes, and processing implications. No missing elements for effective 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the message parameter: 'Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.' This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's plain-text description. No additional info for 'type' or 'context' parameters, but the enum definitions are already clear.

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 specifies the resource (Pipeworx team) and action (send feedback) with concrete examples (bug, feature, praise). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools.

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

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: for bugs, features/data gaps, or praise. It also advises against pasting end-user prompts and recommends describing issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for general questions) or name alternative tools, which would improve clarity.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, and caching window (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?

The description is concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core function, followed by a bullet-like list of 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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers input semantics, output shape, data source, caching, privacy, and three concrete use cases. No significant 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the effect of the window parameter: shorter windows for current trends, longer for steady-state demand. This helps agents choose appropriately.

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 top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discover_tools by focusing on trending usage rather than static listing.

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

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

Three explicit use cases are given: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choice, and seeing alignment. The description also hints at window selection logic (shorter for hot, longer for steady-state). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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

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

The description details complex behaviors: Jaccard similarity filtering, placeholder removal, partition checks, and fill check with book depth analysis. It goes far beyond the annotations (which already indicate read-only and idempotent) by explaining edge cases and when not to trade.

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 clear sections but is somewhat lengthy. Some details could be streamlined without losing clarity, but it remains effective and front-loaded with the requirement.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure and behavior. It covers all necessary aspects for an AI agent to understand and 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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining the context for each parameter, providing examples, and clarifying the difference between modes.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between event mode and topic mode with specific use cases, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly states that one of 'event' or 'topic' is required, and failing to provide any results in failure. It explains when to use each mode and mentions a sibling tool for custom sizing, providing comprehensive usage guidance.

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

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

The description extensively details behavioral traits: it is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint=true), cached 1h, outputs three segments with diagnostics, uses proprietary models with specific formulas, and exposes tradeable-edge knobs. It also discloses Fed bet exclusion from ranking due to data limitations. 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 and front-loads the purpose, but becomes overly verbose with detailed model formulas and internal logic. Many sentences delve into technical specifics that may not be necessary for a typical AI agent invocation, reducing conciseness. Still, it is well-organized in content.

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

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

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, rich internal logic), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response structure (by_segment, diagnostics), caching behavior, and the rationale behind segment exclusions (Fed bets). It compensates fully for the missing 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., min_kelly skips small opportunities, min_partition_leg_kelly applies to per-leg Kelly) and the rationale behind default values and filters. This goes 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 clearly states it 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price' and explicitly positions it for 'what should I bet on today'. The title 'Polymarket Edges' combined with the detailed purpose distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage, which presumably focuses on a different type of arbitrage.

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

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

The description provides strong usage context ('Built for what should I bet on today — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets') and explains when to use filters (e.g., min_liquidity, max_spread_pp). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like polymarket_arbitrage or bet_research, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: limits (60-day TTL, no intraday), response structure (tracked, expired, dates), and decay computation. 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 detailed but front-loaded with purpose. Some technical detail could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly explains response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their significance. Covers history depth, decay computation, and limitations. 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 covers parameters with descriptions. Description adds meaning: explains days clamping (2-30), snapshot family, and how parameters affect response. Provides usage context 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 clearly states it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and whether it's shrinking. It distinguishes from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series and trend analysis.

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

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

Implies usage for understanding edge longevity vs fresh edges, contrasting with polymarket_edges. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it walks the order book ladder, returns verdict-like statuses, and explains that partial fills can be risky. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and does not contradict them.

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

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections and uppercase key terms, but it is relatively long due to detailed return field listings and usage notes. It earns its length given the tool's complexity, but a slightly more concise version could exist.

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 tool has no output schema, yet the description covers return fields comprehensively: top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict, per-leg fill detail, etc. It also addresses edge cases like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk, making it 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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the tool description adds crucial meaning: explains `market` vs `event` modes, default values, interpretation of `size_usd` for buys/sells and basket mode, and parameters like `side` auto-default. It enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It details two modes (single-market and basket) and what each returns, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains when not to use it (e.g., theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable) and warns of risks like unhedged directional positions.

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?

Describes response structure (leg-by-leg prices, matched spread, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). Explains conditions for meaningless spreads (temporal misalignment, mismatched bet shapes).

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?

Packed with useful info but somewhat lengthy; uses bold for key terms and section breaks. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence earns its place given 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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers all response fields, edge cases, and safety fields. Agent can understand tool behavior without additional 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?

Adds value beyond schema: lists all 10 topic shortcuts, explains that explicit params override the topic side, and describes how parameters interact. Schema coverage is 100% and description enriches it.

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

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

Clearly states it computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same question. Distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

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

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

Provides explicit two modes (topic shortcuts vs custom tickers) and explains when to use each. Warns that pre-mapped topics often yield compatibility warnings, setting realistic expectations.

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 read-only and non-destructive behavior. Description adds scoping details (by identifier) and the effect of omitting the key argument, which goes beyond annotations.

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

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

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: primary action, use case, scoping and pairing. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what to expect (value or list of keys). Minor gap: no explicit return format, but common sense suffices.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with description for the only parameter 'key' stating 'omit to list all keys'. Description repeats this but adds little new meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a value by key or lists all keys, using specific verbs (retrieve/list) and resource (values/keys). It distinguishes from siblings remember and forget by mentioning their pairing.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier' and implies when not to (use forget for deletion). Provides context on scoping and pairing with remember/forget.

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 that mark_read:true flags events as read, which contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true. This creates confusion about whether the tool is read-only. The description is otherwise transparent about other behaviors, but the contradiction is critical.

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

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

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information (output fields, filtering, mutability, alternative access). No wordiness.

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 the return structure (source, citation_uri, raw event payload). It covers filtering, mark_read side effects, polling safety, and alternative access. All important aspects are addressed.

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 description adds value beyond the 100% schema coverage by providing examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type) and clarifying that since filters on fired_at >= timestamp. It explains mark_read behavior and polling suitability. However, it does not elaborate on limit or unread_only 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 pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns recent alerts with specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or subscribe by focusing on alert retrieval rather than subscription management.

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 context for when to use the tool: polling for recent alerts. It mentions an alternative access method (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json) for scripts/dashboards, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it details scraper logic (GDELT preferred, GNews fallback), soft-fail for USPTO, return structure with grouped changes and citation URIs, and parameter format examples. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, so the description complements them 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 well-structured, starting with example queries, then detailing sources, parameters, and return format. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'GNews when rate-limited or 5xx' is clear but could be tighter).

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return (structured changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). It covers sources, fallback behavior, and parameter constraints. A minor gap is lack of mention of maximum window size or behavior for very old dates, but overall it's sufficient for a tool with 3 required parameters.

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 enriches parameter meaning: it clarifies the 'since' format with both ISO date and relative shorthand examples, recommends '30d' or '1m', and explains 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. It also notes 'type' currently only supports 'company'. This adds clear value 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's function as a 'change feed for a company' covering SEC filings, news, and patents in a given time window. It provides example queries and distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile'.

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

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

The description gives explicit examples of when to use the tool ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and recommends an alternative ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'). It also explains fallback behavior for news sources. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the alternative guidance is strong.

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 show idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: scoped by identifier, persistent for authenticated users, 24-hour retention for anonymous sessions. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is concise, with 3-4 sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, behavioral nuance, and pairing with other tools. 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 simple two-parameter input schema and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage trigger, behavioral details (key-value storage, scoping, retention), and how it relates to sibling tools. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to understand 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description provides examples (e.g., 'subject_property', 'target_ticker') but adds minimal new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('data'), and clearly states the purpose: storing data for later reuse across conversations or sessions. It distinguishes from sibling tools recall and forget by explicitly mentioning 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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. It also mentions pairing with recall and forget, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool. Overall, 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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds significant behavioral context: internal cascading lookups, auto-disambiguation for company, and citation URIs. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured: starts with example queries, then usage direction, then detailed type breakdown. Each sentence adds information without waste. The length is justified by the complexity of supported types.

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

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

No output schema exists, but the description fully explains return values for both entity types, including fields and citation URIs. It also notes auto-disambiguation. This provides complete context for the tool's capabilities.

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 3. The description enhances parameter meaning with examples (e.g., 'AAPL', 'ozempic') and clarifies that type determines lookup behavior. This adds value beyond the schema's 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 resolves a user-spoken name to a canonical identifier, with specific verb 'resolve' and resource ('entity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_entities and entity_profile by focusing on identifier lookup. Examples like 'what's the ticker for...' reinforce 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?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions the tool replaces 2-3 manual lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, missing the 'when-not' component for a perfect score.

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

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

Discloses that it internally calls ai_visibility_check, processes results, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. Describes first entity as 'subject' for narrative. Adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) 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?

Four concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, then method, use case, and output. No redundant 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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). Covers internal behavior, required API key condition, and supported models, making the tool fully understandable for correct 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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains that first entity in 'entities' is treated as subject vs. competitors, that 'models' includes free workers-ai and requires API key for anthropic, and that 'context' disambiguates common names. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches 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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, specifically mentioning it probes entities with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and identifies most/least recognized. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool ai_visibility_check which handles single 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?

Provides clear context for use: competitive AI-marketing audits, with an example question. Implicitly suggests when not to use (single entity checks should use ai_visibility_check), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives for other scenarios.

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

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

Describes partial failures, bundlephobia measurement delays (5-30s), and graceful degradation with sources_failed. Adds context beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint annotations.

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

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

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value; structure is logical.

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 explains the return format in detail (summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and covers error handling and ecosystem scope, compensating for the lack of 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% and both parameters are described. The description adds meaning by explaining default version behavior and acceptance of scoped packages, providing extra context for effective use.

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 performs a composite check on npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia, with a specific verb 'scan_dependency' and resource 'npm package'. It clearly distinguishes from other ecosystems by noting fallback to deps.dev:version.

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 ('is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and when not to use (NPM ecosystem only; other ecosystems go to deps.dev:version).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is clear. Description adds that the search is client-side over title/description/keywords and returns a UUID, which provides modest additional 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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and has zero extraneous words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers the key aspects: what it searches, how it searches (client-side), and what it returns. It could mention pagination defaults (already in schema) but is largely complete for an AI agent to use 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%, so the schema documents both parameters well. Description adds examples for the keyword parameter (e.g., 'hospital', 'drug spending') and mentions limit default/max, but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states 'Find CMS dataset IDs + titles by keyword' with specific verb+resource, explains CMS data types, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dataset and dataset_info by noting that this tool returns the UUID needed for those 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?

Description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to search datasets by keyword) and mentions the output is used for get_dataset and dataset_info. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient given the sibling list.

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 safe, read-only behavior. Description adds technical details: 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows', 'cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged)', and that passages carry offsets for verification.

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, well-structured: starts with purpose, then usage guidance, then technical details. 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?

No output schema, but description specifies return value: 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores'. Covers all necessary aspects for a 3-parameter read-only 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%, baseline 3. Description reinforces schema by explaining the char cap for 'text', providing examples for 'query', and stating default for 'limit', adding value 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 clearly states it performs 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' by explaining when to use each.

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: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and pairs with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' for grounding, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it mentions account requirements, type-specific parameters, delivery channel caveats (phone verification, daily SMS cap, webhook auto-disable), and that the webhook secret is returned once. However, it does not clarify the idempotentHint=true annotation; each call likely creates a new subscription, contradicting the annotation. Overall transparent except for the 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 fairly long but efficiently packs essential information. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Create a proactive monitoring subscription...'), followed by requirements, type examples, and delivery options. Minor redundancy (e.g., phone verification mentioned twice) prevents a 5.

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 (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers type-specific params and delivery caveats well. It explains the return value (subscription id) and mentions the webhook secret. However, it does not fully describe the response structure beyond the id and webhook secret, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for each type (e.g., sec_8k with items, polymarket_edge with topic) and explaining delivery channel details (webhook signing, phone verification). This extra context justifies a 4.

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

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

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

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

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

The description states when to use this tool (to set up proactive monitoring), lists prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account), and gives examples for each type with parameters. It also mentions delivery channels and that the feed is always-on while email/SMS are optional. Lack of explicit exclusion of alternatives (e.g., when not to use) prevents a 5.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining that it returns category-bucketed example questions drawn from a live catalog of thousands of tools, which is not covered by annotations. However, it could mention any potential side effects or limitations, but overall is 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 relatively long but front-loaded with common user questions, making it scannable. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. The structure is logical, starting with representative queries, then describing output, and finally usage instructions.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (category-bucketed example questions with the exact tool and argument shape). It covers all usage scenarios: general onboarding, focusing by topic, and learning about meta-tools. For a tool with many siblings, it fully justifies its role as the initial discovery entry point.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with a single optional 'topic' parameter. The description adds examples of valid topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and explains the effect of omitting the parameter (cross-category spread). This goes beyond the schema's description, which only lists categories.

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 this is the onboarding entry point for understanding Pipeworx's capabilities, listing example questions and returning category-bucketed example questions with exact tool and argument shapes. It differentiates itself from siblings by being the first tool to use when unfamiliar with the system.

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 this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and provides guidance on calling with no arguments for full spread or passing a topic to focus. It also contrasts with meta-tools like ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, etc., providing clear when-to-use context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and that historical events remain accessible via 'recent_alerts', which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: core action, ownership constraint, and behavioral nuance. No filler or 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers purpose, ownership enforcement, and the side effect of deactivation. The sibling tools list provides further 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 has 100% description coverage. The description reiterates the parameter ('by id') and adds context that the id comes from 'subscribe', which is helpful for understanding provenance. This adds marginal value over the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and identifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (which creates) and 'list_subscriptions' (which lists) by specifying ownership enforcement and the effect of deactivation versus deletion.

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 ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the behavioral effect of deactivation rather than deletion, guiding appropriate use. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives for other scenarios, but the 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it uses SEC EDGAR + XBRL, returns a verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta. No contradictions, and it provides rich 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 well-structured and front-loaded with key information. It includes examples, usage instructions, scope, and output details in a coherent flow, though slightly lengthy.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly details return values including verdict types and citations. It explains scope limitations and the efficiency benefit. Complete for a single-parameter tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description reinforces with examples and clarifies the natural-language format, adding some value beyond the schema definition.

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 natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its unique purpose, not overlapping with other tools.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also notes the scope (company-financial claims) but does not explicitly list alternatives or 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.