Currencyformat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the per-model response structure (score, confidence, signals, raw_response) and combined view. It does not contradict annotations. Missing details on rate limits or potential costs when using Anthropic.

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, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, efficiently covers usage, parameters, and outputs without excess verbiage.

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

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

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, how to use it, and typical use cases. It lacks explicit details on the 'signals' field and the structure of the 'combined view', but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description enhances meaning by explaining default model behavior, the role of '_apiKey' for Anthropic, and how 'context' helps disambiguate entities. The return format is also outlined, 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 probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility per model. It uses specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and resources ('LLMs', 'visibility'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'entity_profile' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on AI-marketing audits and per-model scores.

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 usage contexts are provided: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It explains when to use the default vs. Anthropic model and the need for a BYO API key. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or compare it with similar sibling tools.

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=false. The description adds valuable context: it routes to 4,772 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable URIs, and works on all tiers. No contradictions. The only minor gap is no explicit mention of idempotency, but annotations cover it.

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 verbose (~20 sentences) with repetitive examples and phrases like 'works on every tier, one fast call'. While front-loaded with the key message, it could be more concise without losing clarity. The structure is logical but could be tightened.

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 (6 aliases, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers usage, domain, routing behavior, and distinguishes from alternatives. It omits return format details but mentions 'structured answer with citations'. Output schema is absent, so the description does well to compensate.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters being aliases for 'question'. The description adds no substantive semantics beyond restating that the parameter is a natural language request. The schema already documents the aliases and provides examples. 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's role: answering factual questions from structured data, with a strong call to prefer it over web search. It lists specific domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers and deep_research for broad queries.

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

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

Explicit usage guidelines are provided: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'START HERE for most questions', and concrete when-to-use examples. It also tells when to step up to alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for high-certainty single answers, deep_research for multi-part queries). This is exemplary 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?

Discloses cost (extra LLM call), extraction strategy (uses only tool result), and refusal behavior with specific reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, etc.). Annotations already indicate readonly, idempotent; description adds meaningful 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?

One concise paragraph, front-loads purpose and key distinction. Well-structured but slightly dense; could be streamlined but justified given complexity.

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

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

Given tool complexity (routing among 4772 tools, refusal logic), the description covers use case, cost trade-off, output structure (no output schema but inline description of return fields). Comprehensive for high-stakes 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?

Input schema has 6 parameters, all aliases for 'question'. Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant meaning beyond listing the aliases and natural language expectation.

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: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing extraction and explicit refusal for unsupported queries.

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

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

Explicitly recommends use when answers will be quoted/cited/acted on and agents must not invent facts. Contrasts with ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds extensive behavioral details: classification, fan-out, response shapes, matcher confidence, parent event extraction, news fallback, safety short-circuits for low confidence/closed markets, wide spread handling, and resolution-rule risk. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured with labeled sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.), making it scannable. Front-loaded with core purpose. Some redundancy or excessive detail could be trimmed for conciseness, but overall appropriate for complexity.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains response fields (result.market, analysis, evidence, parent_event), match confidence levels, safety mechanisms, and resolution rules. Covers all necessary information for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning: market parameter accepts slug, URL, or question text; depth enum with quick/thorough options explained; include_raw with detailed guidance on when to use (e.g., recompute deltas, post-process). This goes well 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's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies inputs (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet + comparison). It distinguishes from sibling research tools by focusing on Polymarket bets.

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 use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also provides extensive examples of fan-out for different bet categories. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and aided by sibling tool names.

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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: it details the data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), how off-calendar fiscal years are handled, and that results are sorted by primary metric. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is moderately long but content-dense and well-front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition could be trimmed. Overall, it is efficiently 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data points, sorting), the description is complete. It explains return value structure (paired data + citation URIs), and the preference over alternative tools is clear. No output schema exists, but the description compensates sufficiently.

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?

Although the input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, the description adds valuable context: it specifies that 'values' should be tickers/CIKs for companies and names for drugs, and enforces the 2–5 item constraint. 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 defines the tool's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs. It provides specific example queries and explains what data is fetched for each type, distinguishing it from sequential single-pack lookups.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing a strong usage guideline. It also lists example queries that trigger the tool, making it clear when to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint (false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: account requirement, parallel decomposition across 4,772 tools, gap reporting for unanswered facets, no invention, and expected response time of 15-60s. 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 fairly long but front-loaded with the critical account requirement. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'this is NOT open-web search' is reiterated). Overall well-structured for 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?

No output schema, but the description fully explains the return format (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, and gaps). It also covers behavior when topics are not in the structured catalog and performance expectations. Complete for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage for both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that depth enums correspond to specific facet counts (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and that the question parameter accepts broad/multi-part natural language. This enhances usability.

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 'grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1242 STRUCTURED data sources' in a single call, returning a findings packet with evidence and gaps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx (single lookup) and open-web search.

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 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and warns when not to use: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also notes that deep_research returns empty gaps for topics not in the structured catalog.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. Description adds that results are ready to call directly with full schemas and curated examples, eliminating the need for a second schema lookup. 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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value (purpose, usage guidance, return format). No waste.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (top-N tools with names, descriptions, full input schemas with examples). Also notes readiness for direct invocation. Sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 detailed parameter descriptions including aliases and default/max limit. Description does not add significant new meaning beyond schema examples already present. Baseline 3 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 finds tools by describing data or task, lists numerous example domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), and specifies it returns top-N relevant tools with schemas. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely perform specific searches rather than discovery.

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

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

Explicitly instructs 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set' along with use cases like browse, search, look up, discover. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the directive is clear.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds significant behavioral context: fans out across multiple sources (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), details return structure, notes patent API sunset and soft-fail, and describes fallback logic for news. Goes well 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?

Description is relatively long but well-structured, starting with usage examples and then detailing functionality. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise. Still, it's efficient for the complexity.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents with sunset note, news with fallback, LEI). It also mentions limitations. The tool's purpose and behavior are fully covered.

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?

Input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (type enum, value ticker/CIK). Description reinforces that names are not supported and mentions zero-padded CIK, adding useful nuance. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; description adds extra clarity, thus 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?

Description clearly states it provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call' and lists specific sources and return fields. It explicitly contrasts with chaining single-pack lookups, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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

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

Description explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and warns that names are not supported, advising to use resolve_entity first. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It adds context about clearing sensitive data but does not go beyond what annotations already convey. The destructive nature is clear from both.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Perfectly structured for quick parsing.

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

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and pairing with related tools. 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 coverage is 100% and the description of the 'key' parameter in the schema is clear. The tool description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('previously stored memory'), and the parameter ('key'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by explicitly mentioning them as counterparts.

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: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also references sibling tools for pairing. It does not include negative usage scenarios but is sufficient for a simple 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds context with 'keyless, offline' and an example, confirming no side effects and enriching 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence fronts the purpose and an example, the second clarifies a key detail. Perfectly concise.

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

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

Given all 3 parameters are described in the schema and the example shows the output format, the description is sufficiently complete. No output schema needed.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by specifying currency as ISO 4217, locale as BCP-47, and providing an example that clarifies format, exceeding 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 verb 'Format', the resource 'number as localized currency', provides an example, and distinguishes from sibling tools like format_number by specifying currency formatting.

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 formatting numbers as localized currency with the terms 'keyless, offline', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like format_number or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about being keyless and offline, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key options. It is front-loaded and contains 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?

The description covers the main functionality and the annotations provide safety context. However, it omits the return value format (likely a formatted string), which would be helpful for an agent without output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'with grouping, fixed decimals') but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 formats numbers with grouping, fixed decimals, percentages, or compact notation, and highlights keyless/offline operation. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling format_currency by listing styles like percent and compact, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 specifies the available styles (decimal, percent, compact) with default, providing basic usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like format_currency.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the process: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' It also clarifies the output as a 'single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt.' No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph. It is front-loaded with the main action and remains concise, with no wasted words.

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

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

The tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, but the description explains the output format ('single text blob'). The description is complete for the tool's complexity, providing all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'url' and 'max_links' described in the schema. The description does not add any new details about the parameters beyond what is in the schema. 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's function: 'generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It specifies the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the context of AI crawler indexing. It is distinct from all sibling tools, as no other sibling produces llms.txt.

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 lists three use cases: 'getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but given the uniqueness of the tool among siblings, this is sufficient for a score of 4.

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 and idempotent. The description adds that it filters to active subscriptions by default and lists response fields, providing additional 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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second sentence lists return fields and usage guidance with no wasted words.

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

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

The description covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. Missing details like sorting or pagination are minor given the tool's simplicity and annotation support.

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 one parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional information about it, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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 lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifies return fields, and implies distinction from subscribe/unsubscribe siblings.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: use to review current subscriptions before adding more or to find an ID for canceling, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 are minimal (no destructive hint, etc.), but the description adds key behaviors: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. This provides transparency beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph but logically sequenced: purpose first, then usage cases, then instructions, then team info, then limits. It is concise and front-loaded with the most important information.

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

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

Given 3 parameters (one nested), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers input, usage, and what happens (team reads, affects roadmap). The lack of output details is acceptable for a feedback 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 meaning: specifies typical message length (1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max) and clarifies the 'type' enum beyond schema descriptions. It also explains the optional context object's purpose.

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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or search tools.

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

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

The description explicitly lists when to use the tool: for bugs, missing features/data gaps, or praise. It also gives instructions on what to include (describe in terms of tools/packs, avoid pasting user prompts) and mentions rate limits and zero cost.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral context: self-aggregating signal, derived from analytics engine, no PII, caching up to 1 hour. This fully informs the agent of expected 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 front-loaded with key info and structured with bullet points for use cases. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could be trimmed slightly.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all needed context: what it returns (top tools, packs, volume), data source, caching, and privacy. No gaps.

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 single parameter 'window' has 100% schema coverage with enum and description. The description adds semantic value by explaining that shorter windows surface hot data while longer windows show steady-state demand.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume' over a window, which is specific and unique. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on agent activity trends, unlike other tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools.

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

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

Provides three explicit use cases (discovering hot data, confirming canonical tool, aligning use case) and explains window choice implications. Lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, but 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds rich behavioral context: internal logic (monotonicity, partition-sum, Jaccard filter, placeholder filter, fill check against CLOB depth). Explains skipped_low_similarity and placeholder filtering. 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?

Well-organized with sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK), but somewhat verbose. Some redundancy in explaining partition_check. Still front-loaded with purpose and usage. Minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 response structure (opportunities array with fields, partition_check fields, fill check results). Covers all modes, edge cases (similarity, placeholders), and references sibling. 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 description coverage 100% with examples (event slug, full URL; topic as seed question). Description adds behavioral differences between event and topic modes, and how they affect the scan. Adds nuance beyond schema.

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

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

Clearly states tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. Distinguishes three modes: no args (trending_scan), event (single-market), topic (cross-event). Specific verb+resource differentiates from siblings.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for specific market, topic for cross-event. Provides scenarios and warns when not to trade (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0, do not trade). References sibling polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant value by detailing internal logic (model families, placeholder-slug filtering, caching at KV level keyed on knobs), response structure (by_segment, diagnostics), and edge-case handling (Fed bets). 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 long and dense, with multiple paragraphs and technical detail. It is front-loaded with a summary but then delves into extensive model explanations. While the complexity justifies some length, it could be more concise by separating core usage from algorithmic details. Still, the structured layout (numbered segments) aids readability.

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 having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response top-level fields, segments, diagnostics, and caching. It covers all major behavioral aspects, including edge-case filters and Fed bet handling. For a tool with 9 parameters and complex internal logic, this description is highly 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context for parameters like min_kelly (explains it doesn't filter partition arbs) and min_partition_leg_kelly (explains its role). This extra information improves agent understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It is specific about the verb (scan), resource (Polymarket markets), and output (opportunities). The title 'Polymarket Edges' is distinct from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' or 'polymarket_edge_tracker', and the description reinforces this by detailing the unique model families.

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 frames the tool for 'what should I bet on today' and mentions that it avoids paging through hundreds of markets, signaling its primary use case. It also notes Fed bets are excluded from ranking and explains why, giving context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling tool names and the detailed explanation implicitly guide selection.

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 substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that snapshots are read-only, data gaps occur on cache-miss, snapshot TTL is 60 days, and decay is computed from daily closes, not intraday. This is valuable information not present in annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, arguments, response structure (with sub-fields), and limitations. Every sentence is informative, and it is concise given the complexity of the tool.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively explains return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with sub-fields and their meanings. It also covers limitations (TTL, data gaps) effectively, making the tool's usage clear.

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 context for `days` (lookback, default, max) and `window` (snapshot family, default), which clarifies the schema descriptions slightly. It also explains the effect of these parameters on the response (e.g., snapshot dates). Thus it adds moderate value.

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: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers a specific question about edge duration and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical trends.

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 context on when to use the tool (e.g., comparing a fresh wide edge vs. an old one). It explains the response structure and limitations, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. However, the sibling list includes polymarket_edges, so usage guidance is implicit.

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=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: returns fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict; for basket mode, theoretical_sum vs realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk. It also warns about partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged position. 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 well-structured with clear sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and uses bold for emphasis. It is fairly long but every sentence is informative and necessary given the tool's complexity. Could be slightly trimmed, 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 (two modes, many return fields, risk implications), the description is highly complete. It explains return values, underlying logic (ladder walking, capture ratios), and practical risk management. No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns, and it does comprehensively.

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 beyond the schema: it explains the dual role of size_usd (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), the mutual exclusivity of market and event, and the default behavior for side in basket mode. This adds significant value.

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 a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by explicitly saying 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.'

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 guidance: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges trades above $500. It explains the rationale (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills create directional risk) and specifies required parameters (market or event). This is very clear.

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior. Description adds detailed safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross_type) and warns about non-equivalent bet shapes and temporal gaps.

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 purpose, structured in sections (modes, response, safety fields). Some jargon might be dense, but overall efficient and complete.

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 thoroughly explains response structure (leg-by-leg prices, spread array, top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters).

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%. Description adds context for two modes and explains that explicit overrides auto-mapped values. It also lists all topic shortcuts.

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 calculates cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same question, with two modes and safety fields. It differentiates from intra-venue tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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

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

It explains when to use topic shortcuts vs explicit mode and warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings. It could explicitly mention when to use sibling tools, but the context signals provide that.

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 behavioral context beyond annotations: scoping to identifier, omitting key lists all keys. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

Two concise, well-structured sentences that front-load the main action and add 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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains behavior, scoping, and integration with siblings.

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

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

Schema covers the one parameter fully; description reiterates behavior of omitting the key and adds real-world usage context.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a saved value or lists keys, with explicit pairing to sibling tools 'remember' and 'forget', distinguishing its role.

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

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

Provides concrete examples of when to use (look up context, user's target ticker, etc.) and mentions scoping, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds important behavioral details: mark_read flags events as read so next call returns newer ones, and mentions the feed is persisted. 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 concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose and output fields, second adds filtering and mark_read, third mentions polling compatibility and alternative endpoint.

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 covers return fields and key behaviors. Lacks details on pagination or data retention, but adequate for a read‑only tool with good annotations.

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% for all 5 parameters. Description adds examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type) and clarifies the mark_read flag behavior, going beyond schema descriptions.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' and lists exact returned fields (source, citation_uri, payload). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions by focusing on events/alerts, not subscriptions.

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

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

Indicates polling works fine and provides an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards. Does not explicitly say when to use vs. other tools, but usage is clear from 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description details the tool's behavior: it fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT with GNews fallback (including conditions like rate-limiting), and USPTO with a note on API sunset. It also describes the return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs).

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 well-structured paragraph. It front-loads common use cases, then explains data sources, parameter details, return format, and finally an alternative tool. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully specifies return values (structured changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). It also covers fallback behavior and known issues (USPTO soft-fail). The description is complete for a complex tool with multiple data sources.

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 extra context: for 'since', it explains relative shorthand and typical values; for 'value', it mentions both ticker and CIK formats. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months'. It provides specific examples of use cases (e.g., 'What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by contrasting static vs. change-based retrieval.

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 usage guidance is provided: examples of when to use ('What's new with X', etc.) and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'). Additionally, it recommends typical values for the 'since' parameter ('Use '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring').

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 scoping by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users (24 hours), and idempotent nature implicitly through key-value overwrite. 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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded purpose, then usage, then storage details. No unnecessary words.

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

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

Given simple tool with no output schema and good annotations, description covers purpose, usage, persistence, scoping, and pairing with siblings. Fully adequate.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions; description adds general context but no additional param-specific details beyond schema examples.

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

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

Clearly states verb 'save' and resource 'data' with context of reusing later. Distinguishes from siblings recall and forget by mentioning them explicitly.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward' and pairs with recall and forget, giving clear guidance on 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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that each call cascades through several lookup endpoints, replacing 2-3 manual lookups, and mentions auto-disambiguation for company. 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 dense but efficient, front-loading example queries and usage instruction. It avoids unnecessary words while providing essential details in a structured way.

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 fully explains return values for both types (ticker, CIK, company_name, citation URI for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand, citation for drug). With only 2 parameters and full schema coverage, 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% with descriptions, but the tool description adds meaning by explaining what each type returns (e.g., ticker + CIK for company, RxCUI for drug) and acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, name). This provides context beyond the enum and 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 resolves names to canonical identifiers with specific examples (ticker, CIK, RxCUI). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'entity_profile' and 'compare_entities' by focusing on ID lookup rather than profile or 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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It provides supported types and what they return, giving clear context for when to use. It doesn't list alternatives, but no other sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld. Description adds that it probes entities with ai_visibility_check, returns ranked list with score/confidence/signal density, and mentions the optional Anthropic API key requirement. 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 efficiently cover purpose, method, example, and output. 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?

Despite no output schema, description specifies return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Covers key aspects but could mention error handling for failed probes. Still adequate for a comparison tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaningful context: entities includes subject and competitors, context disambiguates names, models defaults to workers-ai, _apiKey needed only for anthropic. Exceeds 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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check, ranking, and surfacing most/least recognized. It differentiates from sibling ai_visibility_check 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?

Provides explicit use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and implies when to use this over single-entity tools. Lacks explicit 'do not use for single entity, use ai_visibility_check' but context is strong enough.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description details partial failure behavior and timing (5-30s for bundlephobia first measurement). 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?

Dense yet efficient; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with core purpose, then specifics, then edge cases.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return structure (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives) and failure handling. 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 coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are clear. The description adds no new parameter-level information 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 performs a composite check for npm packages using deps.dev and bundlephobia, distinguishing it from siblings which cover other domains.

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 ('is X safe/popular/small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and notes limitations (NPM only, fallback for other ecosystems).

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral detail: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation, and passage offsets for quote verification. 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 concise paragraph that front-loads the core action ('semantic search INSIDE a fetched record'). Every sentence contributes value: inputs, outputs, usage, and technical details. No redundancy.

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

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

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: returns top-N passages with offsets and scores, mentions truncation and pairing with another tool. It is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enhances each parameter with context: examples for query (e.g., 'supply-chain risk'), default for limit, and truncation behavior for text. This adds meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs semantic search inside an already fetched record. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it operates on text the agent has pulled, unlike other tools like deep_research or ask_pipeworx which cover broader research tasks.

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

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

Explicitly advises use when the record is too large for the prompt, saving context. Also pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding, providing clear when-to-use and alternative 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?

Consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false indicating mutation). Adds behavioral context: persistence requirement, delivery channel limitations (10/day SMS cap), webhook HMAC signing, and auto-disable after failures. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is moderately sized but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, but it packs dense technical details that could potentially overwhelm; minor room for structural improvement.

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 (3 parameters, nested objects, multiple types, no output schema), the description is thorough: covers return value (subscription id), all types with params, all delivery channels with constraints and setup, and prerequisite authentication.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, e.g., explaining items codes for sec_8k, providing example params for each type, and detailing delivery options with real examples and security notes (webhook HMAC).

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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription and returns the subscription ID. It uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'subscription to a live-data event stream', distinguishing it from siblings 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 includes prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account) and provides detailed examples for each subscription type with parameter syntax. It implicitly guides usage but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or use alternatives like recent_alerts for pulling the feed.

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 read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: returns questions showing exact tool calls, and is for onboarding.

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 thorough with common queries front-loaded, but could be slightly more concise. Still 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (categorized questions with tool shapes). Complete for an onboarding 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% for the single parameter. Description adds meaning by listing example topic values and explaining the effect of omitting it.

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 category-bucketed example questions with tool and argument shapes, and identifies itself as the onboarding entry point.

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 it (first time, onboarding) and how to call it (no args or with topic). Does not mention when not to use, but context is clear.

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

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

Adds value beyond annotations: explains that the row is deactivated, not deleted, and historical events remain via recent_alerts. Confirms non-destructive nature, consistent with destructiveHint: false. 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action. Each sentence contributes essential information.

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

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

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, it explains the effect and references related historical data. Could mention sibling 'subscribe' more explicitly, but overall adequate.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds context that the id comes from a previous subscribe call, which is not in the schema description. Adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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

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

Clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id.' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Provides explicit ownership constraint: 'you can only cancel your own subscriptions.' Gives context for when to use, though no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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 details about the data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), return verdict types, and efficiency. 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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. It is slightly verbose in repeating the domain but overall every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description explains the return values (verdict, extracted form, actual value, percent delta). It mentions sources and efficiency. However, it lacks discussion of handling unsupported claims or error cases, leaving some gap in completeness.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the claim parameter. The description goes beyond the schema by providing concrete examples of claim phrasing and specifying the domain limitation, adding significant value for correct usage.

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: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides trigger phrases and specifies the domain (company-financial claims for public US companies). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deep_research or 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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also specifies the supported domain and gives examples. It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the domain constraint implicitly provides exclusion criteria.

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