unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond annotations: it explains deactivation (not deletion) and that historical events stay available. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true; description matches and enriches with why it's not destructive and what happens to history.
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, no fluff. Action is front-loaded ('Cancel a subscription by id'). Every sentence earns its place (ownership enforcement, deactivation detail, historical data note).
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership constraint, and effect on data (deactivation + history). No missing context 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?
Only one parameter ('id') with schema description 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond restating 'by id'. 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 states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('subscription'), and clarifies it deactivates rather than deletes, distinguishing it from a delete operation. Sibling tools include 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions', so purpose is clear.
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 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions', which tells when to use (own subscriptions) but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools like 'list_subscriptions' to find subscriptions. Still clear enough for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
There are three overlapping ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) plus a dense cluster of six polymarket trading/arbitrage tools, making misselection likely. Several other tools also blur together around research aggregation and entity lookup (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim).
All tool names are lowercase and snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_structure, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and a few are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). The ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded suffix pattern is readable but not mirrored across the rest of the set.
34 tools is above the 25+ threshold for a server whose stated purpose is Crystallography, and only 3 of those tools actually serve that domain. The rest belong to Pipeworx data lookup, Polymarket betting, memory, research, subscriptions, and unrelated utilities, so the count feels excessive and the scope is unclear.
As a broad data-research toolset, there is decent lifecycle coverage: lookup, research, grounded verification, entity resolution, comparison, subscriptions, feedback, and memory all exist. However, for a server named Crystallography the domain surface is thin (search/get/get CIF only), and there is no general web-search fallback for topics not in the structured catalog.