datasetsSearch the Delaware Open Data catalog of open datasets by keyword. Returns each dataset's resource_id, name, description, category and update date — pass the resource_id to query/metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max datasets (1-100, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword to search dataset titles/descriptions (e.g. "budget", "crime", "health"). | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return fields and hinting at the next step (passing resource_id to other tools). It 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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys the core purpose and return values, and the second provides a follow-up action, making it efficient and front-loaded.
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 (3 optional parameters, no output schema, low complexity), the description is complete enough. It covers the search functionality, return fields, and usage context with open data. Annotations already provide safety and idempotency assurance. No significant 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., mentioning to pass resource_id to other tools). Per guidelines, this warrants a baseline of 3, which is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 searches the Delaware Open Data catalog by keyword and returns specific fields (resource_id, name, description, category, update date). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Delaware Open Data catalog'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools which focus on other domains like polynomial markets or AI visibility.
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 (searching datasets by keyword) and implies it is for open data discovery. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative search methods, though the context suggests alternatives are not applicable given the tool's specific domain.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route queries to the same data sources with only subtle differences. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets, making it hard for an agent to pick the right one without deep reading of descriptions.
Tool names follow a mix of patterns: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and some are just nouns (datasets, metadata). The ask_pipeworx family has consistent prefixes but suffixes vary. Overall readable but inconsistent.
34 tools is excessive for a coherent server. The server tries to be a Swiss Army knife covering data lookup, prediction markets, Delaware open data, memory, subscriptions, and misc tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. Many tools feel tacked on, and the count makes it unwieldy for an agent to navigate.
The server covers multiple domains thoroughly (data query via Pipeworx variants, prediction markets with arbitrage and edges, Delaware open data, memory, subscriptions). However, there are gaps: no tool for managing custom pipelines or for updating data. For the broad scope, it is decent but not fully comprehensive.