get_complexGet a single Complex Portal record by its accession (e.g. CPX-7762). Returns the complex's participants (subunits) with UniProt identifiers, biological roles and stoichiometry, plus systematic name, function, species, and description. Keyless. Complements UniProt/IntAct/STRING.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A complex accession like "CPX-7762". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. The description adds behavioral context: it returns participants with UniProt IDs, roles, stoichiometry, and other fields. It also notes 'Keyless' meaning no authentication needed, which is not in 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 with no wasted words. First sentence clearly states action and example; second sentence lists return content and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, return structure, and context (keyless, complements other resources). No output schema exists, but the description explains return values 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?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter with an example. The description adds 'by its accession' but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a single Complex Portal record by accession, with an example (CPX-7762). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_complexes by focusing on a specific fetch by ID.
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 mentions 'Keyless' and 'Complements UniProt/IntAct/STRING', providing context for when to use this tool (access by accession) and implying alternatives. However, it does not explicitly 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with them, and entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all circle the same company-data space. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also requires careful reading to distinguish. The descriptions help, but the set relies on them to disambiguate near-duplicates.
Nearly all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case style, whether verb_noun (search_complexes, validate_claim, unsubscribe), noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), or brand-like (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges). There is no camelCase mixing or chaotic verb style. Minor inconsistency exists between imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe) and noun-style names, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.
33 tools is well above the 25-tool 'heavy' threshold, and many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, remember/recall/forget) that pad the surface. The server is named 'Complex Portal', yet only two tools serve that purpose—the rest belong to a broad data platform. The count feels inflated and misaligned with the server's stated identity.
For the broad Pipeworx data platform the surface is fairly complete: universal querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. For the Complex Portal domain named by the server, coverage is thin—just search and fetch-by-accession, with no browsing, species filtering, or cross-reference tools. The core workflow works, but the namesake domain is under-served relative to the rest of the set.