list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds specific return fields and the optional parameter behavior (include_inactive). 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, succinct and front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with 1 optional param and good annotations, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. 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%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. Description does not add detail beyond the schema's description of include_inactive, but it does clarify default behavior (active only).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and lists the return fields. The verb 'List' and resource 'subscriptions' are explicit, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe/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?
Provides context on when to use: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. It implicitly advises against adding without first reviewing, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like subscribe or unsubscribe.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta deliberately matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as what-can-I-do entry points, and ai_visibility_check is just the single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent will struggle to pick the right variant without carefully reading long descriptions.
All tools are snake_case and several families share clear prefixes (dart_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but the overall set mixes verb_noun (discover_tools, validate_claim), noun_phrase (entity_profile, deep_research), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and prefix-noun (dart_financials). Readable but not unified.
36 tools is far above the 25+ heavy threshold, and the count is inflated by redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta is a literal duplicate today, suggest_questions overlaps discover_tools, and ai_visibility_check is subsumed by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The broad Pipeworx platform justifies many tools, but the exposed surface is bloated.
The surface covers the apparent domain well: universal querying (ask_pipeworx family + deep_research), tool discovery, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, Korean DART filings, Polymarket analysis/fill-risk, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Minor gaps remain—there's no explicit fetch-by-citation-URI tool despite claims those URIs are fetchable, and no way to retrieve full DART filing text beyond discovery.