Datecalc

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

The description adds that it returns a UTC date/time and supports subtraction via negative values. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., so the description adds moderate context 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 two sentences: first states the primary function and return value, second enumerates the parameters. Every word contributes, no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers the core behavior. It lacks details on parameter combination behavior and exact precision, but is sufficient for a straightforward duration calculator.

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 only 13% (only 'date' has a description). The description lists the duration parameter names (years, months, etc.), adding some meaning, but does not specify constraints, ranges, or default values. It partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 (add or subtract duration) and the resource (a date), and specifies the return of a new UTC date/time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like date_diff and date_info by focusing on duration arithmetic.

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 implies the usage scenario (adding/subtracting durations) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among sibling tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant value: cost implications (Anthropic requires BYO key), default model, and return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). 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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, model options, and use cases. Front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundant information.

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 shape. Parameters are fully described in schema and description. All relevant aspects (purpose, behavior, usage, params) are addressed, making it complete for a moderate-complexity 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 good descriptions. The description enhances understanding by noting the default model for 'models', the BYO key requirement for '_apiKey', and the disambiguation purpose for 'context'. This adds 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 probes LLMs for entity visibility and scores it. The verb 'Probe' and resource 'LLMs' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence', though the focus on visibility scoring is distinct.

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 use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'. It does not specify when not to use or compare directly to siblings, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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. Description adds that it returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs, works on every tier, and is one fast call. Does not contradict annotations. Could mention potential data freshness or rate limits, but still strong.

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 key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'. Provides multiple examples and alternatives, but is somewhat verbose. Still well-structured and every sentence adds value.

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 (6 parameters, many aliases) and rich annotations, the description covers routing mechanism, scope, usage examples, and alternative tools. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the question parameter. The description adds examples and use cases but no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the 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?

Clearly states that the tool routes questions to one of 5,245 tools across 1,369 sources and returns structured answers. Distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by specifying when to use each.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and provides detailed when-to-use guidance with examples. Also tells when to step up to alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). This is 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 safety traits (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds key behavioral context: it's a full working router with no fallback, currently identical to stable but may change when candidates are tested.

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 key info (beta, identical, purpose) and concise. It could benefit from slight structural improvements (e.g., bullets) but is clear and 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?

Given the complexity of a beta router with 5k+ tools, the description is quite complete: it explains the relationship to ask_pipeworx, current state, usage, and expected behavior. No output schema exists, but the description indicates the same response shape.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'same arguments' but does not add meaning beyond the schema's alias 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 it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical functionality but experimental routing improvements, distinguishing it from its sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by being the experimental edge.

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 explicitly says to use it like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and mentions that results are compared to the stable router. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but implies using the stable version for non-experimental needs.

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint) are consistent. Description adds key behavioral details: refusal modes with specific reasons, the extraction process, and the extra LLM call. 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: explains process, return format, refusal reasons, and usage context. Well-structured for an agent to quickly grasp.

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 details the return format, including success and refusal structures. Covers the complexity of tool selection and answer extraction. Complete for the tool's purpose.

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 description. The description lists aliases but doesn't add substantial meaning beyond the schema. A 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 starts with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' clearly stating the purpose. It specifies that it extracts answers only from tool results, distinguishing it from 'ask_pipeworx' by noting the extra LLM call and refusal behavior. The verb-resource pair is explicit.

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 guidance on when to use: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts.' Also states when to prefer the alternative: 'Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.'

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 extensively discloses behavioral details beyond annotations, including: low-confidence resolution short-circuit, closed/dead market handling, wide-spread liquidity warnings, cancellation rule parsing, and blocking paths. It also explains NEWS fallback mechanisms. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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, which reduces conciseness. However, it is well-structured with clear sections (RESOLVER CONTRACT, PARENT_EVENT, etc.) and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, but the length could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers response shapes, market_match_confidence, parent_event extraction, news fallback, safety mechanisms, and cancellation rules. No important context is missing.

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 meaningful descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds further context: explains that 'depth' can be 'quick' or 'thorough' with implications, and describes the purpose of 'include_raw' (summarized vs full payload). This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 output (evidence packet + market-vs-model comparison). Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling Polymarket tools, the purpose is distinct and well-defined.

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 scenarios: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also guides when to inspect fields like market_match_confidence. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with similar sibling tools like polymarket_edges.

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: 'off-calendar fiscal years handled correctly', 'Results sorted by primary metric', and 'Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs'. 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 somewhat long but front-loaded with key trigger phrases and structured with clear sections. It packs a lot of information efficiently, though it could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 hints at return format (paired data + URIs). It covers both entity types thoroughly. Sibling tools include similar research tools, and the description clearly positions this as a comparison tool vs. those. Complete and comprehensive.

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: explains that 'company' pulls latest 10-K data and 'drug' pulls FAERS counts, and clarifies that values for company are tickers/CIKs, for drug are names. This adds significant context beyond the minimal 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs'. It uses specific trigger phrases like 'compare', 'rank', 'head to head'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups and specifies data sources for each entity type.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also includes example queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though context implies it is for comparisons only.

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 and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe behavior. The description adds context about output (signed difference in multiple units, human-readable summary) and input format (ISO-8601), but does not disclose edge cases or error handling.

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-loaded with the core function, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers input format, output (multiple units + summary), and timezone (UTC). Missing details on error handling or non-valid inputs, but overall fairly 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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter described as 'date/time (ISO-8601)'. The description adds example formats but no new semantic 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 verb 'Compute the difference' and the resource 'two dates/times (UTC)', and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_duration' and 'date_info' by specifying it returns signed differences in multiple units.

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 implies usage for date difference computation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_duration' or 'date_info'. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool is clearly safe and idempotent. The description adds the UTC context but does not disclose behavior for invalid dates or time portion handling. The description adds some value 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs without redundancy or unnecessary words.

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

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists all expected outputs. A minor gap is not specifying the return format (e.g., JSON object), but overall it is 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 description for the single parameter is minimal ('A date (ISO-8601).'), but the description enriches it by listing the specific calendar facts computed from the input, giving the agent a clear idea of what the parameter affects.

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 the tool returns calendar facts about a date in UTC, listing specific outputs like weekday, day-of-year, ISO week number, quarter, leap year, and days in month. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like date_diff (difference between dates) and add_duration (add/subtract duration).

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 implies use when calendar facts are needed, and siblings provide clear alternatives (date_diff for differences, add_duration for arithmetic). However, 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds extensive context: account requirements, paid tier, parallel decomposition, return format with gaps, citations, contradictions, semantic excerpting, and timing. 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 very long (approx. 500 words) and front-loaded with account info, but includes detailed behavioral notes that could be streamlined. While comprehensive, it lacks conciseness; some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'not open-web search'). Score reflects adequate but verbose structure.

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 (1369 sources, 5245 tools, multiple depth levels), the description covers all essential aspects: usage, behavior, parameters, output format (findings packet), limitations (empty gaps for news), timing, and iteration details. Very complete even without output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds meaningful detail: explains depth enum values (quick=3 facets, standard=5 with gap recovery, thorough=8 with iterative hop) and confirms question accepts natural language broad queries. Adds value beyond 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's purpose: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources. It uses specific verbs ('research', 'decomposes', 'routes') and distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx for single lookups or current news.

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 provides when to use (broad/multi-part structured data questions), when not to use (breaking news, single lookups), and alternatives (ask_pipeworx for single lookups, ask_pipeworx for current news). Also explains depth level contexts.

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 valuable context beyond annotations: it states that results include names, descriptions, full input schemas with curated examples, and that results are ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This complements the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations 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 fairly concise given the complexity, with each sentence adding information. It front-loads the purpose and domains. Minor verbosity in listing domains could be trimmed, but overall it's 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 discovery purpose, no output schema, and 6 parameters (with 100% coverage), the description adequately explains what results contain and how to use the tool. It could mention that results are ranked by relevance, but the current explanation is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'query' accepts multiple aliases (task, q, description, search) and provides natural language examples, clarifying usage 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 uses specific verbs ('Find', 'browse, search, look up, discover') and explicitly lists domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), making the tool's purpose very clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by being the discovery mechanism for other 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set'. This is strong usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the 'first' framing implies it's the entry point, not for retrieving specific data.

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 openWorldHint. The description adds context like parallel fan-out across sources, patent sunset soft-fail, and output of pipeworx URIs, which go beyond the annotations. 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 verbose with multiple examples and some repetition (e.g., 'full cross-source profile' mentioned twice). While well-structured and front-loaded, it could be 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 no output schema, the description thoroughly details return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI), covers limitations (patent sunset, name unsupported), and provides input examples. It is complete 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant context: explains valid formats for value (ticker or zero-padded CIK), explicitly states names are not supported, and directs to resolve_entity. This exceeds the baseline of 3 by providing actionable guidance.

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 in ONE parallel call,' with specific outputs listed. It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_entity and compare_entities by emphasizing holistic profiling over chaining individual queries.

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 instructs 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack...' for holistic views and directs to use resolve_entity if only a name is available. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with alternative tool reference.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about use cases but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral details beyond what annotations convey.

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 with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and pairing with siblings.

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 does not add any parameter-level details beyond the schema's 'key' description. Baseline score is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 from siblings by mentioning pairing with remember and recall.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: stale context, task done, clearing sensitive data. Mentions pairing with siblings. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the fetch-extract-emit process and stating the output format, aligning with annotations. 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 a single paragraph of about 60 words, front-loaded with the main action and followed by use cases. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter; still earns its place.

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 2 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, process, output format, and use cases. No gaps.

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 'url' and 'max_links'. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema—it repeats the URL example and default. 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 verb ('Generate'), resource ('llms.txt file'), and scope ('for any URL'). It explains the process and lists specific use cases (client indexing, drafting, auditing), which effectively differentiates it from sibling 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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios via 'Useful for:' (client index, own project, competitor audit). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, but the context and sibling list make the intended use 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the returned fields, stating the default filtering to active subscriptions, and indicating the caller-scope. This supplements the annotations well.

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 with no fluff: purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, return values, usage context, and parameter behavior (via schema). It is fully adequate for correct 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%; the only parameter 'include_inactive' is fully described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'List the caller's active subscriptions,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. 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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear guidance on usage context relative to siblings.

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: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and does not count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. The annotations are all false, so they don't provide conflicting information. 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, behavioral details, and parameter hints. Every sentence adds value, and it is not verbose. It front-loads the key 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 complexity (nested object, enum), the description covers essential aspects. It explains the structured context parameter and message format. No output schema exists, but the description notes that feedback is read by the team, which suffices. Slightly more detail on the feedback process could be added, but it is mostly 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 value by explaining each parameter in detail: the enum values for 'type' are described, 'context' is explained as optional with pack/tool/vertical, and 'message' guidance includes specificity and length limit. This clarifies usage beyond 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 explicitly states the tool is for sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or needed items. It defines four specific types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by being a feedback channel rather than a query or data tool.

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 the tool: for bugs (wrong/stale data), feature/data gaps, or praise. It also explains what not to do (do not paste the end-user prompt) and mentions rate limits. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or say 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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: caching behavior (5min-1h), data source (CF analytics-engine), and privacy (no PII). 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?

Description is concise and well-structured: starts with the core function, then use cases, then technical details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Uses bullet numbering for clarity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what to expect (top tools, packs, total call volume) and operational details (caching, data source). No gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with enum and description. The description further explains the semantic trade-off between short and long windows, aiding parameter selection 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 the tool returns 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window' with specific time options (24h, 7d, 30d). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on aggregation and trend data, not individual queries or comparisons.

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 three distinct use cases: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, and checking alignment with agent needs. Provides guidance on window selection ('shorter windows surface what's hot; longer windows show steady-state demand'), helping the agent choose appropriately.

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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral context: Jaccard similarity threshold, partition filter, fill check logic, and warning about realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0. This far exceeds the annotation burden.

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 dense with useful information. It front-loads the high-level purpose and modes, then adds supporting details. While slightly verbose, every sentence serves a purpose. Could benefit from bullet points but remains clear and 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?

Despite having no output schema and 0 required parameters, the description fully explains the response structure (opportunities[], partition_check, fill check) and covers edge cases (Jaccard similarity, placeholder filter). Even references another tool for custom sizing. Thorough and self-contained.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds significant value: explains slug format, accepts full URLs, describes topic mode behavior, and provides examples. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It describes three distinct modes (no-args trending scan, event-specific, topic-based cross-event), distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_fill_risk.

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 each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan…', 'pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check', or 'topic for a themed cross-event scan'. Recommends 'event (recommended for a specific market)' but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives beyond itself.

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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, all consistent with a non-mutating scanning tool. The description significantly enriches transparency by detailing caching (1h KV-level keyed on all knobs), response structure (by_segment with three segments), model families, diagnostics (why segments might be empty), and behavioral traits like the 24h-move warning. 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 lengthy but well-structured: opening with purpose, then detailed model explanations, response format, and knob descriptions. Every sentence adds substantive information for a complex tool. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'by_segment' details) could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient for the information density.

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 lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively covers the return structure (by_segment with three segments), diagnostics (funnel counters, filter_skips), and caching behavior. All 9 optional parameters are explained in the schema, and the description ties them together. The tool's complexity (multiple model families, knobs, segments) is fully addressed with no apparent gaps.

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 value by grouping parameters into 'tradeable-edge knobs' (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp) and explaining their collective impact on realizability of edges. It also clarifies the relationship between min_kelly and min_partition_leg_kelly for different opportunity types. While not adding new schema descriptions, it provides meaningful inter-parameter context.

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: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It is built for the specific use case 'what should I bet on today' and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edge_tracker by focusing on Pipeworx data divergence and automated opportunity detection without paging.

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 for when to use the tool (daily betting discovery) and explains tradeable-edge knobs like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast with sibling tools beyond implying this is the primary scanning tool. The sibling list includes related tools, but the description does not offer guidance on choosing between them.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: data comes from daily snapshots with possible gaps, decay is based on daily closes, and history is bounded by TTL. 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 detailed but efficient, front-loading the core question. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations. It provides all necessary context for an 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%. The description adds defaults (days=14, window='1wk') and explains the meaning of 'window' as snapshot family, which enhances understanding 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 identifies the tool as providing edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering specific questions about edge duration and shrinkage. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_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?

The description explains when to use the tool (to assess edge persistence) and implies that a fresh wide edge differs from an old one, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparison with alternatives like polymarket_edges. The limits are noted.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context like max_fillable_usd, forced_directional_risk, and warnings about partial fills. 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 comprehensive but dense. Front-loaded with purpose and mode separation. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 modes, many return fields) and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers both modes and their outputs, including warnings and edge cases. Completely adequate 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 description coverage is 100% for 4 parameters. Description adds value by explaining REQUIRES one of market or event, default side logic, and size_usd interpretation 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's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and contrasts with siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_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?

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.' Also explains consequences of improper use, providing clear 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds substantial context: safety fields like compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, and skipped counters. It explains response structure and edge cases where spreads are meaningless.

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 dense but well-organized: core purpose, modes, response details, and safety fields. Every sentence adds useful information, with no fluff. Front-loaded for quick understanding.

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, but the description fully explains the response structure (leg-by-leg prices, spread, safety fields) and handles edge cases (compatibility warnings, temporal alignment mismatches). Comprehensive for a tool with three optional parameters.

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 concise descriptions. The description adds value by listing the 10 topic shortcuts and explaining that explicit tickers override topic-mapped sides, plus example values for tickers.

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 spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It specifies two modes and gives concrete examples, differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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 when to use each mode (topic shortcuts vs explicit tickers) and warns that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility warnings. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool or compare with 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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining scoping (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, account ID) and relationship with 'remember' and 'forget'. No behavioral 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 succinct at three sentences, front-loads the primary action, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or 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?

For a simple key-value retrieval tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, scoping, and pairing—leaving no significant gaps.

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 single 'key' parameter is fully described in the schema (including the omit behavior). The description repeats this but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 value stored via 'remember' or lists all keys when omitted. It provides concrete examples (ticker, address, notes) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools '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?

The description explicitly advises when to use the tool ('look up context stored earlier') and how to use it (omit key to list all). It mentions scoping but stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it, though sibling differentiation 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial detail: mark_read flags events as read, affecting subsequent calls. This discloses a behavioral trait not fully captured by annotations, enhancing transparency.

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?

Four sentences, well-structured: purpose first, then parameter details, then behavioral note, then alternative access. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 lacking an output schema, the description mentions return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and provides context for polling and alternative access. For a read-only tool with optional parameters, this is 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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining usage of 'type' (e.g., 'sec_8k'), 'since' as ISO timestamp, and the effect of 'mark_read'. This goes beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed. Returns the most recent alerts...'. The verb 'Pull' and resource 'subscription feed' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on alerts.

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 by type and since, setting mark_read, and mentions polling works fine. It also provides an alternative access method via a direct endpoint. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but gives sufficient context for proper usage.

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. The description adds that it fans out to multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO), explains fallback, and mentions return format with citation URIs.

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 paragraph, front-loaded with example queries, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value including usage guidance, data sources, and return structure.

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 adequately describes return format (structured changes[] with total_changes and citation URIs). It also covers edge cases like USPTO soft-fail and GDELT→GNews fallback.

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 covers all parameters. The description adds context: 'since' with example formats and recommendation, 'value' with ticker or CIK, 'type' reaffirms only 'company' supported.

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 returns a change feed for a company over a recent time window, using example queries. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by noting that tool is for static profiles.

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 to use (for 'what's new' queries) and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'). Also describes fallback behavior and limitations (USPTO soft-fail).

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. The description adds useful context: key-value scoped by identifier, persistence (24h for anonymous), and that it's a write operation. 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 concise (4-5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured. 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?

For a simple write tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains persistence, scope, and related tools, leaving no gaps.

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 key and value. The description adds examples but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, earning a baseline 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 verb 'save' and the resource 'data to reuse later', distinguishing it from sibling tools like recall and forget. It specifies the action and scope.

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 provides when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward' with concrete examples. It also pairs with recall and forget, guiding proper usage.

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 mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it 'cascades through several lookup endpoints internally' and provides citation URIs. 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 front-loaded with examples and clear statements. It is slightly verbose due to detailed type descriptions, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more compact, but structure is logical.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (ticker+CIK+company name+citation URI for company; RxCUI+ingredient+brand+citation for drug). It also mentions auto-disambiguation and internal cascading, providing a complete picture for a lookup 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%, but the description enriches parameter meaning with concrete examples (e.g., 'ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name' for company; 'ozempic, metformin' for drug) and explains output format. This goes beyond the schema's min/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 opens with concrete example queries ('What's the ticker for...', 'find the CIK for...'), immediately clarifying the tool's purpose: resolving names to canonical IDs. It explicitly states it returns the 'canonical/official identifier other tools require as input,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on IDs.

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 instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or compare with siblings, the guidance is clear and actionable. It also enumerates supported entity types with concrete examples, aiding appropriate 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?

Describes internal behavior (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score) and output structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and description adds behavioral context 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?

Three sentences concisely cover action, mechanism, and use case. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose, internal operation, output format, and parameter nuances. No critical gaps.

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 semantic value by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, which is not in schema. Also clarifies model options and context parameter purpose.

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 uses specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single probe) and compare_entities (generic comparison).

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

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

Provides explicit use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and example question, implying when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: fans out to two services, returns specific fields, handles partial failures gracefully, and notes that bundlephobia's first measurement may take 5-30 seconds. 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 relatively long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and then details scope, return data, and edge cases. A bit dense, but well-structured and efficient 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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (summary block with specific fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions). It also covers partial failures, ecosystem scope, and performance notes. Comprehensive for the tool's purpose.

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 both parameters fully described (package name with scoped package acceptance, version defaults to latest). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the composite purpose: checking an npm package for safety, popularity, and size by combining deps.dev and bundlephobia. It uses specific verbs ('scan', 'check') and resources ('npm package'), and distinguishes from siblings by its unique composite nature.

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: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also specifies ecosystem limitations ('NPM ecosystem only in v1') and suggests alternatives for other ecosystems ('PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-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 mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: uses BGE-base-en embeddings with cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, and a 200K char cap with truncation flag. This exceeds annotation 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 compact (4 sentences) yet information-dense. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers usage guidance, technical details, and pairing. Every sentence adds unique 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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states return values: 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' Combined with the input schema and annotations, the description is complete for an agent to understand invocation and 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 adds value by specifying max chars for 'text' (200K), default and range for 'limit' (1-20, default 5), and natural-language examples for 'query'. This improves meaning beyond schema alone.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating the use case (record too big for prompt) and pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 ('when the record is too big to cram into the prompt') and how it relates to an alternative (ask_pipeworx_grounded). It also gives benefits (saves context, returns passages with offsets) and a pairing strategy, fully covering usage 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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Description adds constraints: OAuth requirement, persistence limitations, delivery caps (SMS 10/day), webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, and one-time secret. 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 a single paragraph but efficiently packs all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Could be slightly more structured, but 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?

Despite no output schema, the description states it returns a subscription ID. Covers prerequisites, supported types, delivery options, and limitations. Complete for a subscription creation 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%. Description enriches with concrete examples for each type, required conditions (e.g., sponsor or condition for clinical_trial), and delivery channel explanations with usage notes.

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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns a subscription ID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe by focusing on creation.

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 specifies when to use (requires Pipeworx OAuth, anonymous/BYO cannot persist) and provides supported types with examples. It implicitly guides usage via delivery options but lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement.

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 as true and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: it is the onboarding entry point, returns examples drawn from the live catalog, and explains the meta-tool learning aspect. 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 thorough but somewhat verbose, including many alternate phrasings. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds information, but could be tightened.

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 lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shapes). For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete enough for an agent to use it 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?

100% schema coverage with one optional parameter 'topic'. The description adds meaning by listing example topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and explaining behavior when omitted (full cross-category spread). This goes beyond the schema's generic 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 specifies the tool's purpose: it returns category-bucketed example questions to help users understand what Pipeworx can do. It uniquely positions the tool as an onboarding entry point, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' It also explains optional argument usage (omit for full spread, pass topic to focus). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the guidance 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?

Discloses that the subscription is deactivated (soft delete) and historical events remain via recent_alerts, adding context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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

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

Two sentences, each adding essential information. Front-loaded with purpose and constraint, then behavioral detail. 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?

Covers purpose, constraint, soft-deletion behavior, and relationship to recent_alerts. Missing error scenarios but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 already describes the parameter as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' Description adds minimal additional meaning.

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 verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id', distinguishing it from sibling tools 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?

Explicitly states ownership enforcement (only cancel own subscriptions) and that the row is deactivated, not deleted. Could mention when not to use, 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?

Annotations already indicate it is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant value by detailing the two verification paths (structured SEC vs. grounded), the verdict types returned, the use of verbatim evidence with citations, and the efficiency improvement over sequential calls. 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 relatively long but front-loaded with common query examples and a clear statement of purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some minor redundancy could be trimmed. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly specifies the return values (verdict, value, citation, reasoning). It covers the two main paths, edge cases like tolerance, and explains how it replaces multiple calls. The description is thorough for a complex 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description supplements this by explaining the tolerance_pct usage, its default behavior, and provides example claim formats. This adds useful context 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 defines the tool's purpose: verifying natural-language factual claims with specific examples like 'Is it true that...' and 'fact check'. It distinguishes between company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR and other claims via a grounded pipeline, setting it apart from sibling tools such as ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and outlines two distinct verification paths. It does not directly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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