unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying ownership enforcement, deactivation (not deletion), and the relationship with recent_alerts. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) 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, each serving a distinct purpose: action, ownership, and behavioral effect. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary 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?
The description covers the main behavioral aspects but lacks return value information. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what is returned would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the id parameter. The description only mentions 'by id' without adding new meaning, so it does not significantly enhance parameter 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 states 'Cancel a subscription by id,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by focusing on cancellation and ownership.
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 implicitly tells when to use (to cancel a subscription) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It does mention ownership enforcement and that historical events are preserved via recent_alerts, providing context for when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set includes multiple overlapping tools (ask_pipeworx variants, many polymarket tools) that serve similar purposes, and there is a sharp domain split between food tools and Pipeworx data tools, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (search_food), noun_verb (nutrition_analysis), prefixed (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and no pattern. Some use underscores, some use whole words.
34 tools is on the high side, and the scope is extremely broad (food, data queries, prediction markets, subscriptions), which could overwhelm an agent, but the number alone is not extreme.
As a food API server, it is missing key features like recipe details, ingredient substitution, or meal planning, while including many extraneous tools. The data analytics tools are extensive but not aligned with the server's stated purpose.