Data Centrevaldeloire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds value by explaining the default model, cost implications (BYO key for Anthropic), and the return format, which goes beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is three sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives model and key details, third lists use cases. Every sentence adds unique value with 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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure per model and combined view. It covers the main aspects but could elaborate on the exact content of 'signals' and 'raw_response'.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the default model and the purpose of _apiKey and context parameters. It clarifies that _apiKey is only needed for Anthropic and context helps disambiguate.

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 distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the scoring and model selection, which is unique among the listed tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

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

The description mentions use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains when to provide an API key for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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. The description adds context about routing to 4,774 tools, returning stable citation URIs, and being fast. It does not mention auth or rate limits but 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?

The description is long but well-structured, front-loaded with the most critical guidance, and every sentence adds value. It includes examples, alternatives, and usage instructions without unnecessary repetition.

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 (4,774 tools, many sources), the description is complete. It covers use cases, alternatives, examples, and expected output (citations). No output schema exists, but the description adequately informs the agent of 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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions parameter aliases but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The schema already describes each parameter as 'Alias for question.'

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: answering factual queries with citations, and it distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by specifying when to use each. It uses strong verbs like 'prefer over web search' and lists concrete examples.

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 to prefer this tool over web search, start here for most questions, and step up only when needed. It provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance by naming alternatives and giving examples.

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 significant context beyond annotations, detailing the exact return format (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason) and failure modes (with specific refusal reasons). It also mentions the cost of an extra LLM call, which is not 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 detailed and informative, front-loading the key purpose ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode'). While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 the return format and failure modes. Parameter coverage is complete, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings. The description is fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described as aliases for the question. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so 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 it is a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains how it extracts answers only from tool results. It differentiates from the sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by noting the grounded behavior and extra LLM call.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' with examples. Also advises to prefer 'ask_pipeworx for casual lookups', providing clear when-not 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 discloses extensive behavioral traits beyond annotations, including parallel fan-out logic, response structure, safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuits, closed-market handling), resolution-rule risk, and news fallback behavior. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which the description does not contradict.

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

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

The description is very long and detailed, with multiple paragraphs. While it is well-structured with section headings (RESPONSE SHAPES, RESOLVER CONTRACT, etc.), it could be more concise. The front-loading is good (first sentence states purpose), but the verbosity may hinder quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 lack of output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains return fields (result.market, analysis, evidence), edge cases (low-confidence matches, closed markets, wide spreads), and resolution-rule risk. It covers all necessary behavioral context for safe and effective use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'market' can be a slug, URL, or question text; 'depth' differentiates quick vs. thorough; 'include_raw' advises when to use true vs. false. This provides actionable context for parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and outputs (evidence packet + comparison). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, distinguishing it from sibling Polymarket tools that focus on arbitrage or edges.

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

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

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It gives examples of when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or recommend alternatives among sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' or 'polymarket_fill_risk'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA/clinicaltrials.gov for drugs), sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. This supplements annotations well 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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with common user queries, then the action, then detailed breakdowns for each entity type. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed. Still, it earns a 4 for clarity and organization.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers all aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter details, behavioral specifics, and output format (paired data + URIs). 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the context of each parameter: 'type' enum values (company vs drug) with data source implications, and 'values' format (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names) and constraints (2-5 items). This extra context justifies a 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs. It uses specific verbs ('compare') and resources ('entities'), and distinguishes from sequential single-entity lookups. Examples of user queries ('compare X and Y', 'rank these companies') reinforce clarity.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' Provides clear context for comparison scenarios and explicitly advises against alternatives, making the agent's decision easy.

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, destructiveHint. Description adds value by specifying the exact metadata returned (fields, themes, record count). 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?

Single sentence, efficiently front-loaded with purpose and usage. 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?

Fully describes return content (fields/schema, themes, record count) and usage context. Sufficient for a simple metadata tool with one parameter.

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

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

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Dataset id from search_datasets'). Tool description does not add extra semantics beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'metadata for one Centre-Val de Loire Open Data dataset', and specifics 'fields/schema, themes, record count'. Distinguishes from siblings like search_datasets.

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 'call before query to learn the column names', indicating when to use. No exclusions or alternatives, 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description details return format (findings packet with evidence, gaps), processing model (parallel facets), and limitations (not open-web, not for current news). 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 long but well-structured with critical info front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though a slight trim 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?

Despite no output schema, the description effectively outlines the return format and behavior. It covers prerequisites, alternatives, and limitations, making it complete for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8), default behavior, and complementing the schema's description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: grounded multi-source research across structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets and routing to parallel tools. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx for single 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?

Explicitly tells when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not to (breaking news, current news). It also specifies account requirements and alternative 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the tool returns 'the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This enriches understanding beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is relatively concise given the amount of information conveyed. Each sentence adds value, from purpose to usage to return format. It front-loads the core purpose. Minor redundancy in listing domains could be tightened, but overall 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?

Given the tool's complexity (discovery, many siblings, multiple parameters), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (including full schemas), and examples of queries. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining return structure. Complete for the tool's role.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents all parameters adequately. The description mentions that query accepts natural language but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., aliases are already listed in schema). 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 purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies the verb 'find tools' and the resource 'tools', and distinguishes it from siblings by listing many domains and emphasizing it is for browsing the tool set, not for a single answer.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear guidance on context and priority relative to other 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, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: it fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields, and notes the USPTO PatentsView API sunset in May 2025 with soft-fail behavior. 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 front-loaded with example queries and is well-structured. While somewhat long, each sentence adds value and it avoids unnecessary repetition. Could be slightly more concise but remains clear.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sources, many return fields) and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned: CIK, company name, recent filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents (with caveat), news, and LEI. This is complete for a profile 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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds that the 'type' parameter currently only supports 'company' and that 'value' accepts tickers or zero-padded CIKs, not names—this is useful 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 provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company.' It includes example queries and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity (for name resolution) and chaining individual 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 says to 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups' for a holistic view, and notes that names are not supported (use resolve_entity first). This 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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, matching the description. The description adds behavioral context about why deletion is appropriate (stale/sensitive data) beyond what annotations provide.

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: first states action, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavior. Annotations fill in idempotency and destructiveness.

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 schema's description of the 'key' parameter is sufficient. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by key' which is already implied.

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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by implying the inverse operation.

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 lists when to use ('context is stale, task done, clear sensitive data') and mentions companion tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), providing excellent 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral context: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown. 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?

Description is a single paragraph that front-loads the key action and format. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Efficient and well-structured.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description explains output format as a text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. It covers input, behavior, output, and use cases completely for a simple 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%; both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with specific verb 'generate' and resource 'URL'. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence which have different purposes.

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

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

Description lists three specific use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for your own project, auditing competitors). It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools are unrelated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields and the effect of the include_inactive parameter, enhancing understanding of behavior beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences that front-load the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and concise with no redundancy.

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

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

For a simple list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It states what it does, what it returns, and when to use it.

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 good description for include_inactive. The tool's main description does not further elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and enumerates returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing existing 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' While it doesn't list when not to use or alternatives, this guidance effectively helps the agent decide when to invoke the 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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, including rate limits (5 per identifier per day), that it's free and not counted against quota, and that feedback is read daily and influences the roadmap. Annotations indicate non-destructive and non-readonly, which is consistent.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then details usage scenarios, then provides important constraints and meta-info. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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 the tool has 3 parameters (with nested objects and enums) and no output schema, the description is extremely complete. It covers all parameter semantics, usage context, rate limits, and behavioral traits. No additional information is needed for correct tool invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the enum values (e.g., 'bug = something broke...') and giving guidance for the message field ('Be specific... 1-2 sentences typical'). It also clarifies that context is optional and what to include. This enriches the schema information.

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.' It defines the specific use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes them, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool for each feedback type and includes a clear exclusion: 'don't paste the end-user's prompt.' It also mentions rate limits and that it doesn't count against the tool-call quota, providing comprehensive usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, and caching details (5min-1h depending on window). This is helpful for understanding 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 highly concise: three short paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose, and the rest provides essential context efficiently.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional enum parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what is returned, use cases, data provenance, privacy, and caching. No additional information is 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% with a well-described enum parameter. The description adds interpretation (shorter windows surface what's hot, longer show steady-state demand), which adds meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does significant documentation.

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 that the tool returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. It uses specific verbs ('returns') and provides concrete use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, seeing alignment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or 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?

The description lists three explicit use cases for when to use the tool, giving clear context for its application. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling tools list could imply alternatives.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the semantic anchor threshold (Jaccard similarity ≥0.30), partition filter (placeholder slug removal), fill check with book depth analysis, and the exact conditions for no-trade signals. 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 thorough but somewhat verbose, spanning multiple paragraphs with technical details. However, it is well-structured with clear sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and front-loads the core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, but 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 the tool's complexity (two optional modes, fill check logic, response fields), the description covers all necessary aspects: default behavior, parameter modes, edge cases (placeholder filtering, similarity checks), and integration with sibling tools. No output schema is provided, but the response format is described in detail. Minor gaps: no explicit mention of error handling or rate limits.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the description enriches parameter meaning: it explains that event mode expects a Polymarket slug (or full URL) and walks child markets, while topic mode expects a seed question and searches related events. It also clarifies the difference between the two modes and the response structure.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by detailing its specific methodology and use cases.

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 clear guidance on when to use each parameter (no args for trending scan, event for per-event partition check, topic for cross-event scan) and explains the fill check logic to avoid non-tradeable arbitrage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds extensive behavioral traits: caching, model details, knob effects, diagnostics, Fed bets exclusion. 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?

Long but well-organized with numbered sections and clear hierarchy. Front-loads purpose and segments. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but structure 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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains response structure (by_segment, diagnostics), knob effects, and edge computation details. Complete coverage for agent understanding.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond parameter descriptions, including real-world interpretation (e.g., min_kelly 'skips opportunities too small to bet sensibly'), default values, and guidance for adjustments (e.g., slippage_pp advice).

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 scans Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. Distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage through detailed explanation of edge-detection methodology.

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 targets 'what should I bet on today' and explains the three segments (model-driven, structural arbitrage, concentrated longshot) with when each applies. Does not explicitly say when not to use, but provides enough context for 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?

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds: 60-day snapshot TTL, daily close-based decay, response structure. No contradiction; adds rich behavioral context.

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

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then details. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tighter, but effective.

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

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

Given no output schema, description fully details response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations. Completes context for agent invocation.

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 applies. Description adds default values and ranges but no additional semantics beyond schema descriptions. Adequate but not enhanced.

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: tracking edge persistence and decay, answering longevity and shrinkage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series analysis.

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

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

Implies when to use: comparing fresh vs aged edges. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, though sibling tools are listed in context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral detail: walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, and verdict. For basket mode, details theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill, thin_legs, and forced_directional_risk.

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 relatively long (~300 words) but well-structured: summary sentence followed by clear mode breakdowns. It is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., listing return fields in both modes). Still 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must compensate. It fully documents return values for both modes, including verdict and forced directional risk. It covers edge cases like size clamp and thin legs. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, it is thoroughly 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 semantic value: explains side defaults and auto behavior in basket mode, clarifies size_usd interpretation differences between modes, and states clamp range (10–1,000,000). This goes beyond the schema's property 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 evaluates 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', distinguishes two modes (single-market vs. basket), and lists specific return fields. It differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by naming when to use.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains why (theoretical overrun not capturable, partial fills cause directional risk) and the required parameter (one of market or event).

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: two modes, response structure (leg-by-leg prices, matched spreads), safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters), and conditions under which spreads are meaningless (temporal gap, non-equivalent bet shapes). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with bullet points for modes and safety fields, but it is slightly verbose. Each sentence earns its place, but some detail could be condensed. Still, it is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

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

Given the complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure and all safety fields. It covers edge cases (temporal alignment, bet shape equivalence) and provides sufficient context for the agent to use 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 descriptions for each parameter. The description adds extra value by listing the topic shortcuts explicitly and explaining that explicit parameters override the topic. It also provides examples in the schema, making parameter semantics very clear.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket. It specifies two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit event tickers) and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage. The verb 'spread' and resource 'cross-venue' are specific and unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode, when spreads are meaningful (temporal alignment, compatibility_warning), and when they are not. It warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today, tempering expectations and directing to explicit pairing. This is textbook usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing operations, which is adequate but not rich.

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

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

Single sentence packed with all key information: what the tool does (query records), which dataset (Centre-Val de Loire Open Data), and the language (ODSQL) with its capabilities. 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?

Given tool complexity (8 parameters, ODSQL), description summarizes well. No output schema, but openWorldHint implies variable output. Could mention return format, 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%, but description adds significant meaning by explaining ODSQL syntax and showing relationships between parameters (e.g., 'where' overrides 'query'). This goes 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?

Description clearly states it queries records from a specific dataset using ODSQL, listing supported operations (filter, aggregate, sort, paginate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_datasets, which searches for datasets.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does (query records with ODSQL), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given siblings, the usage is implied though not fully delineated.

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 scope details (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, account ID) without contradicting annotations.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, 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?

With one optional parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers functionality, usage, and scope.

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 clarifies that omitting the key lists all saved keys, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a saved value or lists all keys, distinguishing it from siblings like remember and forget.

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 the tool (look up context stored earlier) and mentions complementary tools (remember/forget), though it does not explicitly state 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns with these. It adds value by explaining the mark_read flag's effect on future calls and mentioning an alternative access method, providing 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?

The description is concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return fields, filtering, mark_read behavior, and alternative API access. It 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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters (100%). The description adds some context for mark_read and unread_only, but mostly restates schema info. With high schema coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns recent alerts with specific fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, but the context makes the purpose clear.

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

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

The description explains filtering options and the mark_read flag, and mentions that polls work fine. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_subscriptions or the GET endpoint.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: fanning out to multiple sources with fallbacks (GDELT→GNews), and soft-fail for USPTO. 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 a single paragraph but efficiently packs examples, source details, and parameter usage. It is front-loaded with example queries. Could be slightly shortened but remains clear and complete 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 the tool's complexity (multiple sources, fallback logic, parameter formats), the description covers essential aspects. It mentions the return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs) even without an output schema. Adequate for selection and invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'since' accepts both ISO dates and relative shorthand (with examples like '7d', '30d'), and that 'value' can be a ticker or CIK. It also clarifies that 'type' currently only supports 'company'.

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 provides a change feed for a company, specifying the scope (last N days/weeks/months) and listing data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool entity_profile for static profiles, aligning with the title and tool name.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (e.g., 'what's new with X', 'updates on Acme') and explicitly advises using entity_profile instead for static profiles. This differentiation helps the agent select the correct 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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context: persistence scoped by identifier, authenticated users get persistent memory, anonymous sessions retain for 24 hours. 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?

Concise at ~60 words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidelines, then technical details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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

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

Given no output schema, description explains storage behavior (scoped by identifier, persistence rules). It also references sibling tools recall and forget for lifecycle management, making the context 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 description doesn't need to add much. But it provides concrete examples for key ("subject_property", "target_ticker") and value ("findings, addresses, preferences, notes"), 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 saves data for reuse later, with specific examples like 'resolved ticker, target address, user preference, research subject'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget'.

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 you discover something worth carrying forward' and 'so you don't have to look it up again'. Pairs with 'recall to retrieve later, forget to delete', providing clear context for when to use.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: internally cascades through multiple endpoints, auto-disambiguation for company, and provides citation URIs. This goes beyond annotations and fully informs the agent about internal 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 well-structured with examples first, then supported types, then details for each type. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but clarity is prioritized.

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 thoroughly explains what is returned for each entity type (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, citation URIs). It covers input formats and disambiguation, making it complete for an AI agent to understand expected results.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides example values (AAPL, CIK, ozempic) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, which already describes the parameters adequately.

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: resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifier. It provides clear examples like 'What's the ticker for…' and specifies the supported types (company, drug). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings, though not explicitly differentiated.

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

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

The description says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing strong guidance on when to use. It also lists supported types and mentions it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or compare to sibling tools like compare_entities or entity_profile.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool internally calls ai_visibility_check for each entity and returns a ranked list. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent.

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 plus a clarifying phrase. Every sentence is informative 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?

Given the complexity of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density) and the internal mechanism (calling ai_visibility_check). It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds extra semantics: 'First entry treated as the "subject" for narrative; rest are competitors.' It also explains the 'context' parameter and the 'models' parameter usage, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities, probes each with ai_visibility_check, and ranks by score. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) by emphasizing multi-entity comparison and ranking.

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 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives an example question, indicating when to use. It implies comparison use case but does not explicitly state when not to use, though the context of siblings provides differentiation.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses that the tool fans out to multiple services, returns a summary and details, handles partial failures gracefully (listing sources_failed), and that bundlephobia's first measurement may take 5-30 seconds. This provides comprehensive behavioral context without 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 information-dense and well-structured. It opens with the composite purpose, specifies use cases, lists return fields, notes ecosystem limitations, and describes failure behavior. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy, achieving high conciseness 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?

Given the tool's complexity (composite multi-service, partial failures, variable latency) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates return fields (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions), explains failure modes, and notes the performance caveat. The only minor gap is the exact format of links, but this does not detract from overall 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds that scoped packages (e.g., '@types/node') are accepted for the package parameter and that version defaults to the latest when omitted. This adds value beyond the schema, but the schema already covers the basic meaning, so a high score is warranted but not the maximum.

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 adding npm packages, aggregating license, security, size, and tree-shaking data from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes itself by covering the npm ecosystem only, with explicit mention of other ecosystems being handled elsewhere.

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 to use this tool when asked about package safety, popularity, size, or cost (e.g., 'is X safe / popular / small', 'what does adding lodash cost'). It also notes that other ecosystems (PyPI, Maven, etc.) should use deps.dev directly, 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds contextual details about return fields and scope but does not significantly extend 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, no filler. First sentence states purpose; second lists output and usage. Highly 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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains return values sufficiently. Parameters are fully documented. Annotations are present. Tool is simple and fully specified.

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. The description reinforces the query parameter's purpose by listing example topics, adding marginal 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 action (search), the resource (Centre-Val de Loire Open Data datasets by keyword), and the region/scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dataset_info and query.

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 mentions that returned dataset_ids can be passed to query/dataset_info, providing clear usage guidance and hinting at alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description details the embedding model (BGE-base-en), window size (500-char overlapping), character cap (200K with truncation flag), and output structure (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores). 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 concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured logically. 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 the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters, output format (passages with offsets and scores), behavioral details (embeddings, truncation), and usage context. It is complete enough 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning beyond schema: for 'text' it says 'Pass the text you already pulled', and for 'query' it provides concrete examples. This 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: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and contrasting with using whole documents.

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

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

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also provides an alternative pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, giving clear guidance on context and exclusions.

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

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

The description covers authentication requirements, delivery channel constraints (email validation, SMS cap, webhook auto-disable after 10 failures), and that webhook secret is returned only once. However, it does not mention idempotency (annotations indicate idempotentHint=true) or extensibility (openWorldHint=true), leaving behavioral gaps despite good overall coverage.

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

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections for types and delivery channels, and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds necessary context, making it efficient for a complex 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple event types, delivery methods, auth requirements), the description covers most relevant aspects. It lacks explicit mention of error handling, rate limits beyond SMS cap, or output format details (e.g., subscription ID structure), but remains largely sufficient 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?

The schema already describes all parameters completely, but the description adds substantial value with concrete examples for each type (including types not in the enum like patent_grant and clinical_trial), detailed delivery options, and constraints. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it creates a proactive monitoring subscription and returns a new subscription ID. It specifies supported event types and delivery channels, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or recent_alerts by focusing on creation and persistent 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?

The description explicitly requires a Pipeworx OAuth account, ruling out anonymous or BYO use. It provides guidance on supported types and delivery options, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like listing existing subscriptions or pulling alerts, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.

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 behavioral context: it's discovery-oriented, returns example questions, uses a live catalog, and is the first step. Does not contradict 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 detailed but not verbose; front-loads purpose then covers usage and output. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but overall efficient for the information provided.

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 explains the return format (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shapes) and covers both calling patterns. Lacks details on pagination or limits, but acceptable for a discovery 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 description adds meaning by listing allowed values (finance, pharma, etc.) and explaining the effect of omitting vs passing topic. Goes beyond the schema's basic 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?

Description clearly states the tool is the onboarding entry point, returning category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shapes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx (which answers) and discover_tools (which lists tools).

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools'. Provides when to pass topic and when to omit, and lists categories. Gives clear when-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 discloses that the row is deactivated, not deleted, and historical events remain via 'recent_alerts,' which goes beyond the annotations that only indicate non-destructive behavior. This provides clear behavioral insight.

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

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

Two sentences front-load the core action and each adds essential information about ownership and behavior. No fluff or 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 covers the key behavioral aspects (ownership, deactivation, historical preservation) but omits potential return values or error conditions. It is fairly complete for a simple cancellation action.

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 'id' with a description. The description adds ownership context but does not significantly augment parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states 'Cancel a subscription by id,' which is a specific verb (cancel) and resource (subscription). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by clarifying ownership enforcement and the deactivation behavior.

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 clearly states ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and explains the effect on historical data, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return format (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta) and noting it replaces multiple sequential calls, providing 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?

The description is a single paragraph that is front-loaded with example queries and usage. It is slightly lengthy but includes necessary details. No wasted sentences, though it could be tightened 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 complexity (NLP claim verification), the description adequately explains returns (verdict, structured form, actual value, citation, delta) despite no output schema. Combined with annotations covering safety and schema covering param, the description completes the context effectively.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'claim' parameter. The description adds extra value by providing example claims and specifying the domain restriction (company-financial claims for US public companies), which aids proper parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides example query types and specifies the domain (company-financial claims for public US companies via SEC EDGAR + XBRL), effectively distinguishing it 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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also defines scope (company-financial claims for public US companies). However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools for non-financial claims, which would improve differentiation.

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