Crontab

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds details: default model, optional Anthropic with BYO key, and return structure (per-model fields + combined view). 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?

Front-loaded with main action, 4-5 sentences with no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value.

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, description adequately describes return structure. Parameters are fully covered. Complex tool with 4 params and no output schema, but description compensates well.

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% coverage. Description adds value by explaining default model and _apiKey purpose, but does not significantly enhance context parameter description. Baseline 3 + extra clarity = 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 probes LLMs for visibility and scores them (0-100). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on LLM probing and scoring.

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?

Includes use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch checks) and clarifies default model and API key usage. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world traits. The description adds value by explaining the routing mechanism, use of stable citation URIs, and that it is a fast single call, without contradicting 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key directive. While it is fairly long, every sentence serves a purpose—usage guidance, examples, sibling differentiation. Minor redundancy in listing aliases again, but overall efficient.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and examples. It is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% and description reiterates the alias support, but it adds meaningful context through examples (e.g., 'What was Apple's revenue in 2024?'), which helps the agent formulate correct queries.

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 routes questions to a vast set of verified sources and returns structured answers with citations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 (factual questions, structured data), gives examples, and says 'START HERE for most questions'. It also specifies when to step up to alternatives, providing comprehensive usage guidance.

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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations: details refusal reasons, return fields, and extra LLM call cost. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and usage. Slightly verbose but each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Complex tool with no output schema; description fully documents return format, refusal reasons, and trade-offs, making it self-sufficient.

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 6 parameters described. The description restates the aliases but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description explicitly states it is a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and distinguishes from ask_pipeworx by detailing the extraction process and refusal mechanism.

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?

Clearly advises when to use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when not ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), including cost trade-off.

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 state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds extensive behavioral details: fan-out strategies, low-confidence resolution short-circuiting, closed market handling, tradeability warnings, cancellation rule parsing, and response 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 very long and detailed. While every sentence adds value, it could be restructured to front-load critical info and reduce verbosity. It includes extensive examples and technical notes that may overwhelm, though they are comprehensive.

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 (classifiers, fan-out patterns, response shapes, safety mechanisms, resolution rules), the description covers all necessary aspects. No output schema exists, so the description fully shoulders the burden of explaining return values and edge 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 description adds meaning beyond schema: explains market input types (slug, URL, question text), depth options (quick vs thorough), and include_raw details (summary vs full payloads). This helps agents choose parameters correctly.

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 researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data, resolving the market, and returning an evidence packet with market-vs-model comparison. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on a single bet research.

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 says 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It provides multiple examples of fan-out patterns and includes safety notes about resolution confidence. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements but gives 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?

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds rich context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. 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 paragraph, dense but front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains concise 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?

No output schema, but description explains return data: paired data + citation URIs, sorted by primary metric. Covers key behavioral aspects for a comparison tool with two parameters. Adequate given 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both params. Description adds meaning: explains data sources per type, value limits (2-5), and examples (tickers for company, names for drug). Enriches 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 starts with example queries (e.g., 'Compare X and Y') and explicitly states the tool does side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one call. It clearly distinguishes from sequential lookups and 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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing a strong usage guideline. It also explains when to use company vs drug types. A minor gap: no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., for more than 5 entities).

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: account requirement, response format (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, timestamp, citations, and explicit gaps), that it never invents answers, decomposition into facets, and expected latency (15-60s). This fully informs the agent of behavior.

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 efficiently structured: account warning first, then core functionality, usage guidance, output details, and timing. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy. Despite length, it is front-loaded with critical info and flows logically.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input semantics, decomposition behavior, expected output (including gaps), account prerequisites, and performance expectations. It leaves no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 the depth parameter facet counts (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and the natural language nature of the question parameter. While helpful, the schema already captures the core semantics, limiting additional contribution.

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: conducting grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1242 structured data sources in a single call, decomposing questions into facets and routing to parallel tools. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx for single lookups or breaking news, and uses specific verbs (research, decompose, route) and resource specification.

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 this tool (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not (single lookup, breaking news). It names alternative tools (ask_pipeworx) and clarifies account requirements (free sign-in, paid plan for 'thorough' depth). This is comprehensive and actionable.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it 'Returns the parsed fields and whether it is valid,' which is useful but expected. No additional behavioral traits like error handling or edge cases are disclosed.

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 long, front-loading the key action and output. Every part is informative and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It states input, action, and output. The lack of an output schema is acceptable as the description outlines the return content.

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 covers the single required parameter 'expression' with a clear example. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's example. The description does not elaborate on format constraints or error handling.

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 'Parse and validate' and the resource 'cron expression', specifying the accepted formats (5 fields or @alias) and the output (plain English, parsed fields, validity). It is distinct from sibling tools like next_runs which also deal with cron but for scheduling purposes.

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 for interpreting cron expressions but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., next_runs) or provide any exclusion criteria. No prerequisites or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context: it returns 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed' – a behavioral promise 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 well-structured, starting with a clear verb ('Find tools...') and then providing usage guidance, examples, and return format. It is comprehensive but could be slightly more concise; however, the front-loading of purpose is excellent.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned ('top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas... ready to call directly'). It also provides usage context ('Call this FIRST') and example queries, making it complete for an agent to understand and use effectively.

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 each parameter is well-described. The description adds examples and explains that query accepts aliases (task, q, search, description), but this is already implied by the schema's description for the query property. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool is for finding tools by describing data or task, lists many example domains, and explains it returns top-N tools with schemas ready to call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_within or bet_research, which operate on specific data rather than tool 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?

The description explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear guidance on when to use it and implies when not to (when you already know the specific tool).

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. Description adds valuable behavioral context: fans out across multiple sources, details return fields, mentions patent soft-fail due to USPTO API sunset, and notes the parallel nature of the call.

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 longer but well-structured: examples first, key usage instruction, then detailed behavior. Every sentence adds value; slight redundancy (e.g., names not supported repeated) but overall efficient.

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 details return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted by period_end, patents with sunset note, news via GDELT→GNews, LEI). Limitations are clearly stated, making the tool complete for its intended 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 clear descriptions. Description adds nuance: example ticker 'AAPL' and zero-padded CIK '0000320193', reiterates that names are not supported, clarifying the value parameter beyond the schema.

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

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

The description is highly specific, listing example user queries, the core function (full cross-source profile of US public companies), and differentiating from tools like resolve_entity. It clearly states the tool's purpose as a holistic lookup over chained single-source calls.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack...lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' Also clarifies input format (ticker or CIK, not names) and directs to resolve_entity if only a name is available.

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 destructive (destructiveHint: true) and idempotent (idempotentHint: true) behavior. Description adds context about clearing sensitive data, enhancing 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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, usage context, and related tools. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, related tools, and behavior (deletion of sensitive data). Complete for the 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 coverage is 100% and already describes 'key' as 'Memory key to delete'. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' It distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'recall' by specifying deletion.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' Also mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', providing 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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds details about fetching the page, extracting key information, and emitting markdown. It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond what annotations offer, such as the output format and typical usage.

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: two sentences followed by a bullet list. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary 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?

The description explains the output format ('single text blob') and location ('site-root/llms.txt'). No output schema exists, so the description compensates fully. It also covers input requirements and use cases, making the tool easy to understand.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The overall description does not repeat parameter details but reinforces that the URL is a 'Full URL' and max_links has defaults. This is adequate given high schema coverage.

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 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the purpose 'for AI crawlers to index the site cleanly'. It lists specific use cases and the output format, distinguishing this tool from siblings like deep_research or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing a competitor. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint = false. The description adds the return fields (id, type, etc.) and default behavior (active only), which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value—first describing the function, then providing usage guidance.

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 with one optional parameter. The description lists the return fields (though no output schema), covers default behavior, and gives usage context. This is complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 describes the only parameter (include_inactive) with a clear description. The tool description does not add further semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so a 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?

The description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions', specifying the verb (list), resource (subscriptions), and scope (caller's active). This uniquely identifies its purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear when-to-use guidance and differentiating it from subscribe and unsubscribe.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds detail about output format (UTC ISO-8601) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 nature of the tool, full schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context. No output schema needed as return format is implied.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the optional start time. 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?

The description clearly states the tool computes next run times for a cron expression, with specific output format (UTC ISO-8601) and optional start time. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_cron.

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 for computing future cron occurrences but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it. It is adequate but not explicit.

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 behavioral traits beyond annotations: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and not counting against quota. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, and the description confirms this is a write operation with no side effects.

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 but contains all essential guidance: purpose, use cases, behavioral notes, and constraints. It is front-loaded with the main action and remains efficient, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: purpose, usage triggers, parameter guidance, and behavioral expectations (rate limits, cost). It is fully 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%, but the description adds value by explaining the 'type' enum in plain language, advising on 'message' length and specificity, and clarifying 'context' as optional. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which serve different functions like searching, researching, or managing 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 provides explicit when-to-use cases (bug, feature/gap, praise) and what to avoid (pasting end-user prompts). It also mentions rate limits and that the tool is free, giving complete guidance for correct invocation.

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, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that data is self-aggregating from CF analytics, no PII, and cached (5min-1h), providing useful behavioral context 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?

Three sentences with clear structure: output, use cases, derivation details. No wasted words; each sentence serves a purpose.

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, but the description hints at output shape (tools, packs, volume). Annotations cover safety. For a simple trend tool, this is sufficiently 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% and includes full description for the single parameter. The description repeats the same semantic info, so it adds no extra value; 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 returns top tools, top packs, and call volume over a specific window, which is distinct from siblings like 'discover_tools' or 'ask_pipeworx'.

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 three concrete use cases (discovering hot data, confirming canonical tools, aligning use cases) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide 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?

Discloses internal algorithms (Jaccard similarity threshold ≥0.30, partition filter rejecting >20% placeholder slugs, fill check using arbitrage.fill_risk). Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are consistent; description adds warnings about realizable edge ≤ 0 preventing trades. No contradiction.

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 sections for modes, filters, and fill checks. Every sentence provides necessary detail for a complex tool; however, some repetition and density could be slightly streamlined without losing clarity.

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?

Completely covers tool complexity: explains multiple modes, algorithm details, response structure (opportunities[] fields, partition_check info, fill check outputs), and references companion tool polymarket_fill_risk. No output schema exists, but description compensates thoroughly.

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 have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description significantly expands meaning with examples ('fed-decision-may-2026'), explanations of each mode, and default behavior when no args are passed. Provides clear semantic context beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action (find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket) using defined methods (monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks). It distinguishes between two modes (event and topic) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_fill_risk and polymarket_edges.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check', or 'topic for a themed cross-event scan'. It recommends event mode for specific markets and explains when topic mode is superior (catching cross-event patterns). No explicit exclusions 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?

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds extensive behavioral context beyond annotations. It explains the internal models (crypto_price, news_momentum, partition_overround), caching behavior ('Cached 1h at the KV level'), filtering logic, and diagnostics, providing deep transparency without contradicting 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 front-loaded with purpose but becomes verbose, with dense technical details that could overwhelm an agent. While well-structured in sections, it could be more concise without losing critical information, earning a middling score for proportionality.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics) and key metrics (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, etc.). It even covers edge cases like Fed bets and filter logic, making it fully self-contained for an agent to infer return format.

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 beyond schema by explaining parameter interactions (e.g., why min_kelly doesn't filter partition opportunities and min_partition_leg_kelly is needed) and providing usage tips (e.g., 'Bump for very thin partitions'). This extra context raises the score above baseline.

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 function: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It uses a specific verb (scan) and resource (Polymarket markets) and distinguishes itself with the unique value proposition of identifying disagreements, which sets it apart from siblings 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?

The description provides usage context with 'Built for "what should I bet on today"' and details the three segments, implying when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool compared to siblings (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker), which would strengthen this dimension.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: history depth is bounded by 60-day TTL, decay is computed from daily closes not intraday, and gaps in snapshots indicate no scans on those days. 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is a single dense paragraph. While every sentence adds value, it could benefit from better structure (e.g., separating response details). Overall, it is effective but not optimal.

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 thoroughly explains the response structure including tracked, expired, and snapshot_dates fields. It covers return values, constraints (60-day TTL, gaps), and decay computation, making it fully complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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% for both parameters, and the description reinforces their purposes (lookback days, snapshot window) without adding new semantics beyond defaults and ranges. This meets the baseline for adequate parameter clarity.

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 provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering a specific question about edge duration and shrinkage. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges which likely offer current edge data without history.

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 the tool's purpose and provides context for when to use it (e.g., distinguishing between fresh and aging edges), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks direct exclusions.

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 (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent. The description adds significant behavioral context: walks ladder, returns slippage, fill details, forced directional risk, and explains basket mode risks 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?

Well-structured with sections for modes and requirements. All sentences add value, but slightly verbose. Front-loaded with purpose and constraints. Good organization.

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, but description lists all return fields for both modes. Explains why to use and risks. Covers complex behavior thoroughly for a multi-mode 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining size_usd interpretation differs per mode, defaults, clamping, and side auto-detection. Enhances understanding 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as an edge check against live order-book depth. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes with specific use cases, and is differentiated from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 when to use: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above $500. Provides reasoning about thin books and partial fill risks, giving clear context and exclusions.

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 the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses key behavioral traits: two operational modes, response structure (leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp), and detailed fields like compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, and skipped_cross_type counters. It explains edge cases (non-equivalent bet shapes, temporal misalignment) – far exceeding annotation coverage.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then modes, response format, safety fields, and a cautionary note. It front-loads key information. While slightly verbose, every sentence earns its place given the tool's 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies response components (leg prices, spread, safety fields) and how to interpret them. It covers edge cases and counters. For a read-only, idempotent tool with three optional parameters, this is highly complete – no critical gaps remain.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the two modes and elaborating on the topic parameter (listing all 10 shortcuts). It clarifies how topic vs explicit parameters interact, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 computing cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It specifies two distinct modes (topic shortcuts and explicit ticket/event slug), which differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on single-venue 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 explains when to use each mode and provides detailed safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment) to interpret results. It warns that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility warnings, setting realistic expectations. However, it lacks explicit 'use this instead of sibling X when...' guidance, which would further strengthen usage clarity.

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 mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds scoping behavior (via identifier) and the dual functionality (retrieve vs. list), which goes 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Could be slightly more terse, but 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not detail the format or content of the returned value. For a simple lookup tool, this is a minor gap; the functionality is clear enough for an agent.

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 optional parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining that omitting the key lists all saved keys, which is not fully conveyed by the schema description alone.

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 retrieves a value by key or lists all keys if omitted, and it names the related tools (remember, forget) for context. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'saved value/list of keys' are 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?

The description explains when to use (look up previously stored context) and pairs with remember and forget, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for similar tasks, but the sibling list is available.

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, destructiveHint, etc. Description adds valuable behavioral context: explains that setting mark_read:true flags events as read so subsequent calls return only newer ones. Also mentions polling is acceptable. 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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each 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?

With 5 optional params and no output schema, the description explains return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and behavior (polling, alternative API). Fully covers what an agent needs to use the tool effectively.

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%, but description adds examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type, 'ISO timestamp' for since) and explains side effect of mark_read. Provides meaning beyond 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?

Starts with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' — clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'list_subscriptions' which lists subscriptions, not events.

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 'Polls work fine' and references an alternative API endpoint, giving context on when to use this tool. However, no explicit when-not or comparison to other sibling tools like 'search_within' or 'recall'.

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, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context: fan-out to multiple sources, fallback mechanism (GDELT→GNews), USPTO patent sunset and soft-fail, and return format. 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 informative but relatively long. It effectively front-loads with examples and logically structures the content. Some details (e.g., patent sunset) could be considered secondary but still valuable.

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, parameter formats, return structure) and absence of output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers input, behavior, output, and error scenarios (soft-fail), making it complete for correct usage.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains 'since' format (ISO date or relative shorthand like '7d', '30d'), recommends typical values, and clarifies 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. Schema coverage is 100% but the description greatly enhances semantics.

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 provides a change feed for a company over a time window, using examples like 'What's new with X'. It specifies the verb 'get changes' and resource 'company', and distinguishes itself from sibling entity_profile.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., for recent changes) and mentions the alternative entity_profile for static profiles. It also provides example queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond the sibling mention.

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 (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds behavioral context: data is scoped by identifier, persistent for authenticated users, 24-hour for anonymous. 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and scope/persistence details. Front-loaded with the main action, 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?

For a simple 2-param tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, scoping, and persistence. No gaps remain.

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 descriptions are already strong (key with example pattern, value as any text). Description adds conceptual context about key-value pairs but doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the description's added context elevates it 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' and provides concrete examples like 'resolved ticker, target address, user preference'. It also distinguishes from siblings 'recall' and 'forget', making the purpose clear and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and pairs with recall/forget. It also notes session scoping and persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users, providing comprehensive usage 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining that 'each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally' and that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, giving insight into internal behavior without contradicting 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 front-loaded with examples, follows with a directive, then details each type. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, earning its place efficiently.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully covers return values for both types, explains the internal cascade, and notes the reduction of manual lookups. This provides complete context for an agent to understand behavior and expectations.

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 enriches meaning by detailing what each type returns (e.g., for company: 'ticker + 10-digit CIK + company_name + citation URI') and auto-disambiguation for company input, adding value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool resolves user-spoken names to canonical identifiers with specific examples ('What's the ticker for...', 'find the CIK for...'). It lists supported types (company, drug) and what each returns, making the purpose precise 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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' providing clear positive guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like entity_profile, so exclusions are absent.

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 no destructiveHint. The description adds that it probes entities with ai_visibility_check and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density per entity, but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like error handling or rate limiting.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, input semantics (first entity as subject), and return structure. It lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites but is generally complete for typical usage.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds context that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative purposes, which provides meaning beyond the schema. No further elaboration on parameter formats or constraints.

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: comparing AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side using ai_visibility_check, ranking by score, and surfacing most/least recognized. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) by emphasizing multi-entity 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?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' and an example question ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like compare_entities.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds details about fan-out across two services, partial failure behavior, timing (5-30s for new bundlephobia measurements), and reporting via 'sources_failed'. 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 a single paragraph but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then providing relevant details. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure: summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also covers error handling and latency, making it complete for a composite 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 baseline is 3. The description restates that version defaults to latest and scoped packages are accepted, but adds no significant 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 is a composite check for npm packages, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('dependency'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting NPM-only scope in v1, with alternatives for other ecosystems.

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 when to use: 'when an agent asks 'is X safe/popular/small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. It also specifies exclusion: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.'

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 technical details beyond annotations: embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), and input cap (200K chars with truncation flag). Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; description adds rich behavioral context without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides examples, pairing advice, and technical details. It uses four sentences efficiently, though the technical details (embedding model, window size) could be considered slightly verbose. Overall, it earns its space.

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 (semantic search with embeddings) and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the return values (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), the internal mechanics (BGE-base-en, cosine, overlapping windows), and constraints (200K char cap). This provides complete context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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, so baseline is 3. The description enriches by providing concrete examples for 'text' (SEC 10-K, article) and 'query' (supply-chain risk, fiscal year revenue), and clarifying default for 'limit'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs 'semantic search INSIDE a fetched record', specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by noting that it pairs with that tool for grounding over passages instead of whole documents.

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 when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context'. It also explains how to combine with ask_pipeworx_grounded for a two-step workflow, providing clear guidance on alternatives and 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?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: requires OAuth account, explains delivery channel limitations (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable), and verification steps. It aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) but doesn't mention idempotency directly.

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 efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides details. While dense, it is still concise and well-structured.

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 states the return value ('new subscription id'). It covers prerequisites, all subscription types with parameters, delivery options with limitations, and account requirements. It is fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke the 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%, but the description adds significant value with examples for each type (e.g., sec_8k items, polymarket_edge topic) and details on delivery object constraints and webhook signing, going beyond the schema definitions.

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 ('Create a proactive monitoring subscription') and the resource ('live-data event stream'). It also mentions it returns the new subscription id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

The description provides explicit prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account), defines supported types with parameters, and explains delivery channels with constraints. It guides when to use each type, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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 context about the output format (category-bucketed examples with exact tool+argument shapes) and the fact that it draws from a live catalog. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 is front-loaded with common queries and well-organized. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes necessary information, making it efficient for agent understanding.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and expected output format, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the optional topic parameter. The description enriches this by listing example values ('finance', 'pharma', etc.) and explaining that omitting it yields a cross-category spread. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as the onboarding entry point for a new agent, explaining that it returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx and meta-tools by stating its purpose as the first stop for learning what Pipeworx can 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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool 'FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' It also explains when to omit the topic parameter for a full spread or pass a specific topic to focus, providing clear guidance on 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?

Description adds significant value beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, row deactivation (not deletion), and historical events preserved. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and efficient use of words. 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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects (ownership, deactivation) and is complete 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% with one parameter. The description mentions 'by id' but does not add detail beyond the schema's description ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'). 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?

The description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by indicating a cancellation action.

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 explains ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the deactivation behavior, providing context for when to use this tool. It lacks explicit when-not guidance but is sufficient.

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) align with the description's mention of reading from authoritative sources and returning verdicts. The description adds details on return format (verdict categories, structured form, citation, delta) and notes v1 limitations, which enhances transparency 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 front-loaded with usage patterns and examples, then details return values. It is informative without being overly verbose, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately explains return values and domain. It covers the tool's purpose and limitations (v1 scope), making it complete 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single 'claim' parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description provides examples and context but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's 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 states the tool verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources, specifically for company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR+XBRL. It provides action verbs like 'fact check', 'verify', and distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls.

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 this tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also specifies the domain (company-financial claims) and implicitly excludes non-financial claims, though no explicit alternatives are given.

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