list_feedsList the curated entertainment & culture feeds (id, title, category, source). Optionally filter by category (books, entertainment, music) or keyword. Pass an id to read_feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Keyword to match in feed title/source/description. | |
| category | No | Filter by category: books, entertainment, music. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover safety and idempotency; description adds field names and filter options. No contradictions, but could mention pagination or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, zero waste.
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 simple functionality, complete with returned fields, optional filters, and pointer to read_feed. Annotations fill 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 has 100% coverage; description only rephrases schema info, adding no new 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 it lists feeds with optional filters and references sibling tool read_feed, making purpose unambiguous.
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?
Implicitly tells when to use this vs read_feed (list vs specific feed), but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or other alternatives.
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.
While most tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research. Similarly, bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze betting opportunities. These overlapping tools can cause confusion for an agent.
Tool names follow a snake_case pattern, but the verbs used are highly varied (ask_, bet_, compare_, deep_, discover_, entity_, fetch_, forget_, generate_, list_, pipeworx_, polymarket_, read_, recall_, recent_, remember_, resolve_, scan_, search_, subscribe_, suggest_, unsubscribe_, validate_). This lack of a consistent verb_noun pattern makes it harder to predict tool names.
34 tools is excessive for an 'Entertainment Feeds' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to entertainment (e.g., SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED data, Polymarket betting). Many of these should belong to a separate 'data-access' server, making the scope unwieldy and unfocused.
For an entertainment feeds server, the set is incomplete. It can list and read curated feeds and fetch arbitrary RSS, but lacks tools for managing subscriptions to those feeds, searching across feeds, or creating feeds. The inclusion of many non-entertainment tools doesn't compensate for these gaps.