unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide safety hints (non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds context: ownership enforcement, that the row is deactivated (not deleted) preserving historical events. 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds unique value (action, ownership, deactivation behavior). Slightly longer than minimal but 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?
For a simple cancellation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers ownership, deactivation semantics, and historical data preservation. Adequately complete given tool 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?
Only one parameter 'id' with schema description already explaining it's a subscription uuid returned by subscribe. Description adds no new meaning beyond schema; 100% schema coverage justifies baseline of 3.
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 ('Cancel a subscription by id') and the resource (subscription). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) are very similar, potentially causing confusion. The Polymarket and memory tool families are well-differentiated.
All tool names use snake_case consistently, with a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, search_datasets, subscribe). No mixing of conventions.
34 tools is high but justified given the breadth of the Pipeworx platform and Ukraine Open Data integration. The set covers a wide range of data sources and operations without feeling bloated.
The tool surface is thorough, covering querying, comparison, profiling, subscriptions, and memory. Minor redundancy in ask_pipeworx variants, but no significant gaps for the stated data-access purpose.