user_authoredList kata authored by a Codewars username; returns each kata's ID, slug, name, rank, tags, and languages it supports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | List of authored kata |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns specific fields and multiple kata, but does not contradict annotations. Minimal added 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and output.
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 a complete output schema (has-output-schema=true), a single required parameter, and thorough annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's function. The listed returned fields complement the 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 0% with no parameter descriptions in schema. The description only implies the username parameter through context ('by a Codewars username'), adding minimal detail beyond the schema's property name and required flag.
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 verb 'List', resource 'kata authored by a Codewars username', and specifies the returned fields (ID, slug, name, rank, tags, languages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_completed (completed kata) and kata (specific kata details).
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?
Implicitly indicates usage for listing authored kata, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., user_completed for completed kata) or conditions for use.
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.
The 4 Codewars tools (kata, user, user_authored, user_completed) are distinct, but the 31 Pipeworx tools create real overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-twins of the same router, and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping opportunity-discovery purposes. discover_tools and suggest_questions also both serve as 'what can I ask' entry points. Agents will misselect between the three ask_pipeworx variants and across the prediction-market suite.
Naming conventions are mixed: bare nouns (kata, user), bare verbs (forget, remember, subscribe), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), verb_noun (validate_claim, bet_research), and noun_verb (user_authored, user_completed) all appear. Even within the small Codewars family the prefix style is inconsistent — kata and user are bare nouns while user_authored and user_completed expect a user_ prefix, and remember/recall/forget use a different verb style than the rest of the server.
35 tools exceeds the 25+ 'too many' threshold for a coherent server. Worse, 31 of the 35 are Pipeworx meta-research tools unrelated to the server's namesake (Codewars), so the count is drastically inflated relative to its apparent purpose — the server presents a full finance/prediction-market/research gateway while contributing only 4 tools to its advertised domain.
The actual Codewars surface has significant gaps: kata, user, user_authored, and user_completed are purely read-only, with no solution submission, attempt/training history, leaderboard access, or kata search by difficulty/language. Meanwhile the Pipeworx side is over-complete for a server not named for it, leaving the server's stated identity under-covered with no way to perform any write operation on the Codewars platform.