search_cratesSearch crates.io for Rust packages by keyword. Returns crate name, description, downloads, latest version, and repo URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (default 10, max 100) | |
| query | Yes | Search query string |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Total number of matching crates | |
| crates | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds information about returned fields but does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and key return values. Every word is useful, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (search), and the description covers main functionality. An output schema exists. The description mentions return fields, though missing details like sorting or pagination. Still, it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches crates.io for Rust packages by keyword, listing specific return fields (name, description, downloads, version, repo URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated to crate searching.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling tools are diverse, but no explicit usage context is provided.
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 tool set includes several overlapping research/lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) and multiple Polymarket tools, which could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions. The boundaries between these tools are explained in the descriptions, but the sheer number of similar-purpose tools creates ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_crates, get_versions, validate_claim), but there are exceptions like entity_profile, deep_research, and bet_research, which break the pattern. The overall naming is readable and mostly consistent, with the polymarket_ and pipeworx_ prefixes providing grouping.
With 35 tools, the server is far too heavy for a focused service. The server name 'Crates' suggests a narrow domain, but only 5 tools relate to Rust crates, while the rest cover disparate areas (Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory management). This mismatch and high count make the tool surface unwieldy.
For the underlying Pipeworx/Polymarket domain that the majority of tools serve, the coverage is strong: lookup, grounded answers, research, entity profiles, comparisons, changes, claim validation, scanning, memory, subscriptions, tool discovery. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct summarization), but the set feels well-rounded for a data analysis agent.