metadataGet a NYC Open Data dataset's schema + metadata (columns, types, row count, category, last-updated) by resource_id, e.g. "8wbx-tsch".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Dataset id, e.g. "8wbx-tsch". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds that it returns schema/metadata, but does not disclose further behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with all essential information: verb, resource, outputs, and example. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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 a single parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields. Slightly incomplete on potential error cases or limits, but sufficient for a straightforward metadata lookup.
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 'resource_id', with both schema description and tool description providing example value. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond a repetition of the example.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a NYC Open Data dataset's schema + metadata', listing specific fields (columns, types, row count, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like 'datasets' and 'query' by focusing on metadata retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include query and datasets, but no comparison or condition for selection is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all perform prediction-market analysis. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily select the wrong one, especially since the server name 'NYC Open Data' does not hint at this focus.
Most tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity) and families share prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. Minor deviations exist with one-word names like datasets, metadata, and forget, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.
34 tools is far too many for a server labeled 'NYC Open Data,' where only 3 tools (datasets, metadata, query) actually serve that purpose. The rest form a general-purpose data platform, but even then the count is high and includes many redundant meta-tools and overlapping Polymarket utilities, making the set feel bloated.
For the NYC Open Data domain, the three dedicated tools cover search, metadata, and query—adequate core functionality but missing export or dataset management capabilities. For the broader Pipeworx platform, coverage is strong (routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, subscriptions, memory), but the severe mismatch between the server name and actual scope leaves a major completeness gap.