hierarchyTaxonomic hierarchy for a given EOL hierarchy entry id (from get_page).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taxon_id | Yes | taxonConceptID from a page response |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the core functionality, which is fine but doesn't exceed what annotations provide.
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 that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no 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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, existing output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.
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 a clear description of taxon_id. The tool description adds context by linking it to get_page, enhancing understanding 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 returns a taxonomic hierarchy for a given EOL hierarchy entry ID, and ties it to the get_page tool, distinguishing it from siblings like get_page.
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 the use case: after getting a page, to retrieve its hierarchy. It implies context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that eliminate ambiguity. Even similar tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by use case (casual, high-stakes, multi-faceted). The Polymarket and EOL tool suites are internally distinct.
Naming mostly follows snake_case with verb_noun or prefix patterns, but there is inconsistency: e.g., 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'bet_research' vs 'deep_research'. The Polymarket and memory tool groups are internally consistent, but overall the server mixes conventions across sub-domains.
34 tools is on the high side, but the server covers multiple domains (EOL taxonomy, Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions). The count is borderline excessive for a focused server; meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions help, but the sheer number can overwhelm an agent.
The tool set covers many data sources and analysis tasks well, but the server name 'Eol' implies a biological taxonomy focus, which is underserved (only 4 tools). For the broader implicit purpose of a research assistant, there are notable gaps like open-web search, image analysis, or document management.