Conspiracy Theory

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true and destructiveHint as false, consistent with a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: default model cost (free), Anthropic requires BYO key, and return structure includes per-model and combined views.

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-loading the main action and covering purpose, usage, and output. 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, but rich annotations, the description covers input, usage, output shape, and cost implications. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining default model, when _apiKey is needed, and that context is for disambiguation. This provides practical parameter context.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'probe' and the resource 'LLMs', specifying that it scores visibility (0-100) per model. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on probing multiple LLMs and providing a quantitative score.

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 lists use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains when to pass `_apiKey` and that the default model is free. However, it does not explicitly compare to similar 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that Pipeworx 'picks the right tool, fills the arguments, and returns the result' which explains delegation behavior. However, it does not disclose potential latency, error handling, or that answers depend on underlying tool availability.

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 plus examples, all relevant. Front-loaded with 'Ask a question in plain English' as the key action. Examples at the end are helpful. Could be slightly more concise by removing 'No need to browse tools or learn schemas' as it's implied.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the tool's behavior (auto-selection, argument filling) and gives concrete examples. Missing details about potential failure modes or limitations, but not critical for such a simple interface.

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 a single parameter 'question' described as 'Your question or request in natural language'. The description adds value by framing it as 'plain English' and providing examples, but the schema already conveys the core meaning.

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 accepts plain English questions and returns answers by automatically selecting and invoking the best tool. Examples illustrate scope (e.g., trade deficit, adverse events, SEC filings). Differentiates from siblings like 'discover_tools' or 'recall' which are more specific.

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 users to 'just describe what you need' and provides three examples showing natural language use. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context signals (single required parameter) and examples imply broad applicability.

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 and idempotentHint; description adds behavioral details: it routes internally, extracts answer from tool result, returns evidence, and includes explicit refusal reasons. 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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Good structure for a complex tool.

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 fully explains the return format (with fields), refusal reasons (with enum values), and use cases. Given the tool's complexity (multi-step routing, extraction), 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described as aliases for 'question'. Description adds minimal value beyond stating 'your question in natural language', which is already in 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 clearly states it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode' that extracts answers using only tool result content, distinguishing itself from the sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by noting the refusal mechanism and extra safety for high-stakes reads.

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 ('when answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when to prefer the sibling ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), including cost trade-off ('costs one extra LLM call').

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 indicate safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description greatly expands with details on fan-out, resolver contracts, low-confidence matches short-circuiting, closed market handling, and wide-spread notes. 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 lengthy but well-structured with clear section headings (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, etc.) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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 lack of output schema, the description comprehensively covers inputs, behavior, fan-out examples, response shapes, safety mechanisms, and edge cases like closed markets and low-confidence matches.

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 description adds value: examples for market input, explanation of depth enum (quick vs thorough), and details on include_raw (size implications). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 opens with a clear statement: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies the verb (research) and resource (Polymarket bet via Pipeworx), and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_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 explicit use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also notes when not to use (closed/dead markets return status: 'market_closed_or_inactive') but does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned for each type and mentions pipeworx:// URIs. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or potential errors, but the disclosed behavior is specific and sufficient for a read operation.

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, front-loaded with purpose, uses a structured format for type-specific details. Every sentence is informative and concise, with no unnecessary words.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality, data returned, and efficiency benefit. It lacks details on error handling or return format structure, but is complete enough for an 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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the specific data fields for each type (company vs. drug) and clarifying the format of values (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug), going beyond the schema's minimal 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 compares 2-5 entities side by side, with specific data fields for each type (company: revenue, net income, etc.; drug: adverse events, approvals, trials). It also distinguishes itself by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls, which sets it apart from siblings.

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 implies usage when comparing multiple entities and mentions it replaces sequential calls, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives among 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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns theory text with supporting connections, but does not disclose that the output is fictional or that it may hallucinate. 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 front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the mode naming inconsistency reduces clarity and precision.

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 covers the main purpose and modes but omits details on depth and confidence parameters. Given the output schema exists, the return description is adequate but not thorough. The mode mismatch further lowers completeness.

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 explains the mode parameter beyond the schema enum, but the mode name 'escalate' conflicts with schema's 'complete'. It does not explain the depth or confidence parameters. Overall, it adds moderate value but with inconsistency.

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 conspiracy theories and lists three modes with brief explanations. However, there is a discrepancy: the description mentions 'escalate' mode, but the input schema uses 'complete' instead, which could confuse an agent.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like validate_claim or compare_entities. It does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the mode descriptions alone.

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 states the tool 'returns the most relevant tools with names and descriptions,' which sets expectations about the output format. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but for a read-only search tool, the behavioral transparency is high enough.

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: first states purpose, second clarifies return value, third gives usage timing. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact output format (e.g., array of tool objects), but for a search tool, the description is adequate.

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%, meaning both parameters are described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It reinforces the query parameter usage with examples but does not introduce new info.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the Pipeworx tool catalog by describing what you need.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (tool catalog), and method (natural language description). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting this is for finding tools among 500+ options, which none of the siblings do.

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: 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This explicitly tells the agent to use this tool as a first step for tool discovery, distinguishing it from siblings like ask_pipeworx (which likely answers questions) or forget/recall/remember (which manage memory).

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds detailed behavioral context: fans out across SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF; returns specific fields; mentions patent API sunset soft-fail; explains unsupported names. 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?

Single, well-structured sentence with front-loaded purpose. Includes examples, supported inputs, and fallback behavior. Every phrase adds value with 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 high complexity (multi-source), no output schema, but description thoroughly covers return fields (CIK, name, filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents status, news, LEI). Mentions failure modes and source-specific details. Complete for 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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for type and value parameters. Tool description further clarifies accepted formats (ticker vs CIK, zero-padded) and states name not supported. Adds meaning 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?

Clearly states it returns a full cross-source profile of a US public company in a single parallel call. Uses specific examples ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme') and distinguishes from chaining single-source lookups. Differentiates from siblings like resolve_entity.

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 (holistic view request) and when not to (if only a name exists, use resolve_entity first). Provides alternative tool for name resolution. Gives clear context for preferring this over chaining.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States that deletion is by key, but does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, requires confirmation, or has side effects. Acceptable for a simple delete operation.

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, no waste. Front-loaded with action and resource.

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?

Simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema. Description is sufficient for the agent to understand usage, though lacks explicit mention of idempotency or error cases.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description ('Memory key to delete'). 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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'stored memory by key'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' (store) and 'recall' (retrieve).

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?

Implied usage: call when you want to delete a memory. No explicit guidance on when not to use or alternative tools for similar actions, but context from sibling names provides implicit differentiation.

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 behavior. The description adds that it fetches the page and extracts title/description/key links, providing insight into the background process, which is useful beyond the 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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then process, then use cases. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers output format ('standard llms.txt markdown format', 'single text blob') and explains what the tool does, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds extra context: 'url' is the full URL to summarize, and 'max_links' includes default (25) and maximum (50) values, which are not in the schema but enhance 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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the exact actions (fetch, extract, emit). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which focus on analysis rather than generation.

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 lists explicit use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors) but does not provide conditions when not to use or contrast with specific alternatives among the 27 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 context beyond annotations: scopes listing to caller, specifies return fields, explains parameter for inactive subscriptions. All annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent and reinforced.

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: purpose+returns, usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action.

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?

Simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema needed. Description covers purpose, usage, and parameter effect. Sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools (subscribe, unsubscribe) by focusing on listing and provides return fields.

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 use 'before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear when-to-use guidance and contrasting with subscription management 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses rate limiting ('5 messages per identifier per day') and hints at appropriate content (excluding user prompts). However, it does not mention side effects, data handling, or response behavior, leaving some transparency gaps for a feedback tool.

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

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

The description is three sentences long, front-loading the purpose and key usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It efficiently covers purpose, use cases, constraints, and rate limiting.

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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameter context, and rate limits. It does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., acknowledgment), but that is acceptable for a non-critical input tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it rephrases the enum examples and suggests typical message length. It does not clarify parameter relationships or nested constraints beyond what the schema already 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 the action and resource: 'Send feedback to the Pipeworx team.' It enumerates specific use cases (bug reports, feature requests, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct 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 guidance on when to use (bug reports, etc.) and includes practical instructions like 'Describe what you tried in terms of Pipeworx tools/data' and rate-limit details. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools cover other purposes, so 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 already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds concrete details: self-aggregating from CF analytics, no PII, cached 5min-1h. 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?

Concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with main output, then use cases and additional context. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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

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

Good overall; explains return fields, use cases, caching, and privacy. Lacks explicit output schema but sufficient for a simple trending tool. Minor gap: doesn't detail format of top tools/packs.

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 enum and description for 'window'. Description adds valuable nuance: shorter windows for hot trends, longer for steady-state demand.

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 returns top tools, packs, and call volume over specified windows. It distinguishes from siblings like discover_tools by focusing on trending usage rather than discovery.

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 three explicit use cases (discovering hot sources, confirming canonical choice, aligning use case). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context is clear and helpful.

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 critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: it requires one of 'event' or 'topic', explains the monotonicity check and partition_sum check, semantic anchor for cross-event, partition filter, and response structure. Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds rich 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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (e.g., SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER). It front-loads the critical requirement about parameters. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise for faster parsing.

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 thoroughly covers both modes, constraints, and expected response fields (opportunities[], partition_check). It provides complete context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, including edge cases like failure with no args.

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 each parameter. The description adds further meaning by explaining the two modes in detail, including examples of slug/topic formats and the acceptance of full URLs. It also clarifies behavior when no arguments are provided.

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 arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It specifies two modes (event and topic) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_kalshi_spread, which cover different aspects of exchange 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: 'event (recommended for a specific market)' and 'topic (for cross-event scanning).' It explains the advantage of cross-event mode over single-event mode. However, it does not directly compare to alternative tools or specify conditions where this tool should not be used.

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?

Description adds extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: caching (1h at KV level), output structure (by_segment, diagnostics), and explanations of model families and edge computation. 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?

Description is long but well-structured with sections for model families, response segments, and knobs. Front-loaded with purpose. Technical details are relevant but could be slightly more concise.

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 comprehensively explains all fields in the response (by_segment, edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, diagnostics). Covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds meaningful context for parameters like min_partition_leg_kelly (explains why min_kelly doesn't filter partition arbs) and min_liquidity (thin-book opportunities). Adds value 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 scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. Distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx disagreements.

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 'Built for what should I bet on today' and explains knobs like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp for filtering tradeable edges. Does not compare with siblings but provides usage context and notes Fed bets are excluded from ranking.

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 behavior. The description adds significant detail about response structure, safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped types), and when spreads are invalid, providing transparency beyond the 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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections for modes, response, and safety fields. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 response fields and safety conditions, covering compatibility_warning triggers, temporal alignment, and skipped comparisons, ensuring an agent can set expectations completely.

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 with examples and descriptions for all parameters. The description reiterates modes but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema, justifying a baseline of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states it computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_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?

Explicitly describes two modes (topic and explicit), explains when spreads are meaningful vs not via compatibility_warning, and warns that most pre-mapped topics are not tradeable, guiding appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses that omitting key lists all memories and that retrieval is for earlier saved context. However, it does not specify what happens if key does not exist, memory size limits, or whether retrieval is destructive. Adequate but could be richer.

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, each with distinct value: first states function, 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?

Given simple tool with one param and no output schema, description covers the main functionality. Could mention return format or error behavior, but not critical for basic use.

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 one parameter, and description adds context that omitting key lists all keys. This goes beyond schema, explaining the dual behavior. For a single optional param, this is good.

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 states the tool retrieves a memory by key or lists all memories, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete).

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 explicitly says when to use it ('retrieve context you saved earlier') and mentions the alternative behavior when key is omitted (list all). Does not explicitly mention when not to use it, 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?

Adds value beyond annotations by describing mark_read behavior and feed availability, with no contradictions to the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints.

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, front-loaded with purpose, efficient and informative without waste.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains returned fields and behavior comprehensively, making it complete for a polling/feed 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%, and the description elaborates on parameters like since (ISO timestamp), mark_read (affects next call), and provides an example for type filter.

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 fired events from your subscription feed' with specific details on returned fields and filtering options, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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

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

Provides usage context (filtering, polling, alternative endpoint) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), description adds significant behavioral context: database sources, fallback logic, PatentsView API sunset soft-fail, return format (structured changes[], total_changes, citation URIs), and accepted date formats.

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 efficiently front-loaded with use cases. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff. Slightly verbose but commensurate with 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 the tool's complexity (multiple sources, fallback, date parsing, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it explains sources, fallback, return shape, and data limitations. No gaps for agent decision-making.

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 description adds value by clarifying acceptable formats for `since` (ISO date vs relative shorthand with examples), restricting `type` to 'company', and explaining `value` can be ticker or CIK.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'change feed for a company', 'fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile, making the purpose clear and unique.

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 examples ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and a clear when-not-to-use alternative ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'). Also explains fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users, which is valuable context. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like key overwrites, size limits, or whether the memory is shared across sessions, which would improve transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then adds usage guidelines and behavioral context concisely.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required string params, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits (persistence). One might wish for size limits or overwrite behavior, but these are minor for a straightforward memory store.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond examples of keys and values; the schema's descriptions are sufficient. 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 clearly states the tool stores a key-value pair in session memory, with a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('key-value pair in your session memory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'forget' and 'recall' by describing the write operation.

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 explains when to use it: to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls. It provides context for usage but does not explicitly exclude scenarios where alternatives (like 'recall' or 'forget') might be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses input acceptance, output fields (ticker, CIK, name, URIs), and the nature of the call (single, canonical IDs). Lacks details on error handling or multiple matches but is adequate for a read-only lookup.

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, each earning its place: first states purpose and benefits, second details version, inputs, and outputs. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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

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

No output schema exists, but the description adequately lists return fields. Given the tool's simplicity (two params, one enum), it covers essential behavioral and input aspects. Missing details on error cases or performance but sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value. However, it provides concrete examples (AAPL, 0000320193, Apple) that clarify the schema's description, elevating from baseline 3 to 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 states the tool resolves an entity to canonical IDs across Pipeworx data sources, specifying the supported type (company) and input formats (ticker, CIK, name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on ID resolution rather than general queries.

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 implies when to use (single call replacing 2-3 lookups) and notes v1 only supports company, giving clear context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which assures safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and ranks by score, surfacing most/least recognized entities. 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and concise.

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 explicitly states the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). It fully explains the tool's behavior for its complexity and parameter set, making it complete for 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds context about the probing process but does not introduce new parameter semantics 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 the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check internally and ranking results. It distinguishes from ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic 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?

Explicitly states usefulness for competitive AI-marketing audits and provides an illustrative question. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide.

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 operation. The description adds crucial behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement may take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timeouts. 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 moderately sized but front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words and includes all necessary context, though it could be slightly tighter. Still clear and effective.

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 comprehensively lists all return fields (summary block, advisory details, links, alternative versions) and handles edge cases like partial failures and version defaults. This fully compensates 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining scoped packages are accepted and defaulting to latest version if omitted, which goes beyond the schema's parameter 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's a composite check for npm packages, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the verb 'scan' and the resource 'npm package dependency', and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool that performs this combined 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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small' and notes the NPM-only scope, mentioning that other ecosystems are handled by deps.dev:version directly. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not.

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 safety hints (readOnlyHint, etc.). The description adds technical details beyond annotations: embedding model (BGE-base-en), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), length cap (200K chars with truncation flag), and return items (character offsets, similarity scores). 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?

Five well-structured sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value (purpose, usage, pairing, technical details).

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (passages with offsets and similarity scores), usage scenario, technical constraints, and pairing with another tool. Covers all necessary context for a complex search 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%, so baseline is 3. Description provides examples for query but does not add substantial new semantics 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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with specific action, resource, and mechanism. It differentiates from sibling tools by pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded for a distinct workflow.

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 gives a use case: when the record is too large for the prompt. Mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded but does not cover when not to use or other 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing OAuth requirement, delivery channel behaviors (always-on feed, email/sms limits, webhook signing and auto-disable). This context is 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet-like formatting for types and delivery channels, making it easy to parse. Every sentence provides 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is comprehensive: it explains required account, supported types, delivery behavior, and limitations (e.g., 10 SMS/day). The return value (subscription id) is stated. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: examples for each subscription type (e.g., items in sec_8k), delivery options with specifics like verification and rate limits. This enriches the schema's property 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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns the new subscription id. It distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and recent_alerts by specifying it's for creating new subscriptions, not listing or retrieving alerts.

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 explains when to use: for proactive monitoring with a Pipeworx OAuth account, noting that anonymous and BYO accounts cannot persist subscriptions. It provides context on supported types and delivery channels, but doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases or mention when not to use beyond the account requirement.

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, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral specifics: returns category-bucketed questions with tool+argument shapes. 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 that front-loads the main intent with example phrases and covers key aspects. It is concise with no redundancy, though a more structured format could improve skimmability.

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 tool with one optional parameter and good annotations, the description fully explains the return structure (category-bucketed questions with tool+argument shapes) and usage context. It is complete without an 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%. The description adds meaning by listing valid topic values (e.g., 'finance', 'pharma') and explaining the effect of omitting vs. including the parameter, going beyond the schema's brief 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 defines the tool as an onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes. It specifies multiple user intents and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'discover_tools' by indicating it teaches how to call meta-tools.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' It explains arguments (omit for full spread, pass topic to focus). It lacks explicit exclusions for alternatives but 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?

Discloses that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and why, adding context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent, which align with soft deactivation.

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 the action, no wasteful 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?

Covers ownership, deactivation behavior, and link to historical events. With no output schema and simple parameters, it's sufficiently complete for tool 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% and the schema describes 'id' as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'. The description adds no further parameter details, so 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?

Description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id', with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions', guiding when to use and not use, and mentions 'historical events stay available via recent_alerts' as an alternative 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: sources used (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), return format (verdict types, structured form, actual value with pipeworx:// citation, percent delta), and efficiency claim (replaces 4–6 calls). 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 compact (under 100 words) yet packs substantial information. It front-loads with trigger phrases, then states purpose, supported domain, output summary, and efficiency benefit. 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 tool's complexity (NL claim verification), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains input format, supported domain, behavior (authoritative source lookup), and expected output (verdict, actual value, citation, delta). The agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema covers the single parameter 'claim' with a description. The description goes further by specifying the type of claims supported (company-financial), providing concrete examples, and explaining how the claim should be formatted (natural language, e.g., 'Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion'). This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw 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: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides multiple example query triggers ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from potential sibling tools by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. The verb 'validate' combined with 'claim' is specific and 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?

The description gives clear usage context: use whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness of a user's statement, specifically for company-financial claims for public US companies. It does not explicitly list when NOT to use or name alternative sibling tools, but the provided domain scope is sufficient for appropriate selection. Slightly lacking explicit exclusion criteria, hence 4.

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