list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the output fields and the effect of the include_inactive parameter. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then additional details. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description lists the return fields, explains the optional parameter, and provides usage context. No output schema exists, so the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the optional parameter include_inactive as 'Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false).' This clarifies its purpose beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List the caller's active subscriptions') and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). It differentiates from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools have distinct purposes overall, but some pairs (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile vs recent_changes) could cause agent confusion without careful reading. Descriptions mitigate overlap, so only minor ambiguity.
Most tools use snake_case with verb_noun or noun_verb patterns, but several single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe) and a few inconsistent forms (czeonia, pribor) break uniformity. Still, the pattern is largely predictable.
31 tools is high but justified for a multi-domain data gateway covering finance, economics, FDA, betting, and subscriptions. Each tool has a clear role, though the count pushes the upper bound for easy scanning.
The tool set comprehensively covers its stated domains: entity resolution, financial data, exchange rates, interest rates, SEC filings, FDA, Polymarket analysis, subscriptions, and utility memory. No obvious gaps given its purpose as a data retrieval and analysis server.