Epss

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it probes multiple models, returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view. Discloses that Anthropic calls require API key and direct payment to Anthropic. 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys all necessary information 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?

Given complexity (multiple models, optional API key, scoring), description is complete. No output schema, so description provides return structure details (per-model fields and combined view). Covers all aspects needed for correct 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% with descriptive texts. Description adds context: entity is the thing to ask about; models list supported values; _apiKey only needed if anthropic in models; context helps disambiguate. Fully explains purpose and usage of each parameter.

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 it probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility (0-100) per model. Mentions default model and optional Anthropic with API key. Lists specific use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. Differentiates from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx which answer questions rather than measure visibility.

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 AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. Also notes default model is free and optional Anthropic requires BYO key. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but context with sibling tools makes it 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it routes questions to 3,744 tools across 884 sources and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 the key guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and each sentence contributes useful information. However, it is somewhat verbose with extensive examples and could be trimmed slightly without losing 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return structure. It mentions 'structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs' but does not detail the format (e.g., JSON shape). Given the tool's broad scope and complex routing, more specifics about output would enhance 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 already describes all parameter aliases (q, query, text, etc.) as alternative names for 'question'. The description mentions 'accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases' but adds minimal new meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool is for factual questions about real-world data from authoritative sources, explicitly distinguishing it from web search with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and listing numerous concrete examples (SEC filings, FDA data, etc.). This leaves no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 guidance to prefer this tool over web search for specific categories of factual queries. Lists many example queries and situations (e.g., 'current US unemployment rate'), making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke. Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the positive guidance is comprehensive.

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, non-destructive. Description adds refusal reasons, extra LLM call cost, and extraction process, providing rich behavioral context 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?

Description is detailed but front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with alias list that is already in schema.

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?

Completely documents return format (success and refusal), trade-offs, and usage context. No output schema but description compensates fully.

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 schema descriptions already explain the aliases. Description mentions natural language question but adds minimal new meaning 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?

Description clearly states it is a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' that extracts answers only from tool results, with explicit refusal reasons. It distinguishes from sibling tool ask_pipeworx.

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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on...' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' Clear when to use and when not.

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, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds extensive behavioral details: fan-out logic, response shapes, resolver contract, safety short-circuits, closed market handling, wide spread warnings, and resolution-rule risk. 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 verbose but well-structured with clear section headings (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES). Core purpose is front-loaded. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but structure aids readability.

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 complexity, no output schema, and rich behavior, the description covers all critical aspects: safety, edge cases, resolution risks, return field details, and blocking behavior. It leaves no significant gap for an agent.

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. The description enriches parameters with examples (slug, URL, question), explains depth enum values and include_raw behavior, and adds context like fan-out and classifier types 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 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call' with clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on a single bet research.

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 provides direct usage cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z') and classifier examples. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: details on data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of 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 moderately long but front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence adds distinct information (purpose, alternatives, data sources, sorting, output). It could be slightly trimmed but remains efficient for the 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?

For a comparative tool with two entity types and multiple data sources, the description covers purpose, usage, data pulled, sorting, and output format (paired data + URIs). No output schema exists, so the description compensates adequately, though exact formatting details are omitted.

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 by explaining what each type ('company' vs 'drug') does (pulls specific financial metrics vs adverse-event counts) and gives concrete value examples (tickers, drug names). This exceeds the basic 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 performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single call, with example queries like 'compare X and Y' and 'which is bigger'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups, making the purpose and differentiation 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?

The description explicitly recommends using this tool over sequential lookups when comparing entities, and provides clear example phrases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single entities), but the context strongly implies the comparative scope.

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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it extracts verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, explicit gaps for unanswered facets, never invents, and has a 15-60s timeout. This adds substantial context beyond 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 detailed but well-organized: front-loading core purpose, then process, then usage notes, then prerequisites. Each sentence adds value. Slightly long but justified given tool 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 the tool's complexity, schema covers both parameters, no output schema but description explains return structure (findings packet, gaps), annotations are comprehensive, and prerequisites and timing are stated. Complete and clear.

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 the depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and that thorough requires a paid plan. It also clarifies the question parameter accepts broad/multi-part. Score 4 for adding useful 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 it performs grounded multi-source research in one call, decomposes questions into sub-questions, routes to many tools, and extracts evidence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by noting it's for broad/multi-part questions.

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 provides when to use (broad or multi-part questions) and when not (use ask_pipeworx for single lookups). It also mentions prerequisites (Pipeworx account, paid plan for thorough depth).

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 safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns top-N tools with full schemas and examples, ready to call directly, providing more behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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

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

Three concise sentences covering purpose, usage, and output, with no redundant or 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?

Fully explains what the tool returns (names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and how to use it. No output schema needed as description covers it.

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 each parameter has a clear description. The description does not add significant meaning 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 tool finds tools by describing a data or task, using specific verbs like 'browse, search, look up, discover'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-discovery 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?

Explicitly advises calling this tool FIRST when many tools are available and the agent needs to see the option set. Lists specific domains for 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 already indicate readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints. The description adds valuable context: fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields, notes USPTO API sunset soft-fail, and describes fallback mechanisms. 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 dense and front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 thoroughly explains what is returned: cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents with caveat, news, LEI. It covers edge cases like name unsupported and API sunset, making it very 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%. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'type' only supports 'company', 'value' can be ticker or CIK, and names are not supported. Examples like 'AAPL' and '0000320193' are provided.

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'. It lists example queries and data sources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resolve_entity' that handle names.

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 says to 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view'. It also advises using 'resolve_entity' first if only a name is available, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description confirms destructive action but adds no new behavioral info (e.g., what happens if key not found or confirmation). Adequate but minimal added value.

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 action and resource, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words, highly 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 single parameter with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. Could mention return value or error handling, but not critical for a simple delete operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only parameter 'key' is fully described in schema. Description does not add extra context beyond schema. At 100% schema coverage, 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 verb 'Delete', resource 'memory', and method 'by key'. 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?

Explicitly lists conditions for use: stale context, task done, clearing sensitive data. Also pairs with complementary tools, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context by explaining it fetches the page, extracts metadata, and emits markdown, which aligns with and enhances the 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then process, then use cases. No redundant information, 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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, good annotations), the description is nearly complete. It explains the output is a 'single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt', but could explicitly state the output format is markdown.

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 both parameters. The description adds default (25) and maximum (50) for max_links, and clarifies that url is a 'Full URL' to summarize, providing 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 generates an llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb (generate) and resource (llms.txt file). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on generating the file rather than just checking AI visibility.

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 lists explicit use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting your own, auditing a competitor), but does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though sibling context implies the niche.

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?

Description goes well beyond annotations by explaining the output (score 0-1, percentile) and the meaning of EPSS. Annotations only indicate read-only, idempotent behavior; the description adds crucial context about what the scores represent and how to interpret them.

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 focused sentences: first defines the tool's output, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage context. It explains the output format and practical application, making it complete for an AI agent to use 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?

The input schema covers the parameter fully with format examples. The description only mentions 'one or more CVEs' without adding syntax details, so it provides minimal extra 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 returns EPSS exploit-probability scores and percentiles for CVEs. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'top_exploited'.

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 clear guidance on using the tool to gauge real-world exploit likelihood and prioritize patching, including a useful comparison with CVSS severity. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools.

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 destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the default behavior (active only) and the returned fields, which are not in the 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 two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with robust annotations and schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps are evident.

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 schema covers the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'the caller's active subscriptions', and lists the specific fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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 to use this tool to review subscriptions before adding more or to find an id to cancel, providing clear context for when to invoke 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 are all false, indicating a non-destructive, non-read-only mutation. Description adds important behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per day, free, doesn't count against quota, team reads daily, affects roadmap. 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?

Concise single paragraph front-loading purpose, then when-to-use, then instructions, then constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, parameter guidance, constraints, and impact. 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining enum meanings with examples and giving instructions for message content (specific, don't paste prompt). It enriches the schema without being redundant.

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 tool's purpose: to tell the Pipeworx team about bugs, missing features, or praise. It lists specific use cases and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are query/research oriented.

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 each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and what not to do (don't paste end-user prompt). Also mentions rate limits and quota, providing complete 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 declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral context: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, caching (5min-1h). This goes beyond annotations to help the agent understand data freshness and privacy.

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 and well-structured: main output first, then use cases, then technical notes. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No 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 read-only analytic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, data provenance, privacy, and caching behavior. It is fully self-contained and 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 has 100% coverage with enum values and descriptions. The description adds meaningful context: shorter windows show 'what's hot right now', longer windows show 'steady-state demand', enhancing the semantic 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 the tool returns top tools, packs, and call volume over selectable time windows. It uses specific verb 'Returns' and names exact resources, distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on aggregated trend data.

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 lists three use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, aligning use cases). It does not state when not to use, but the context is clear. Missing exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, but still strong 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 declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds rich behavioral details: logic of checks (monotonicity, partition_sum), semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity >=0.30), partition filter (placeholder slugs), fill check via live CLOB depth, and conditions for not trading. 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?

Dense with valuable information, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Front-loaded with requirement and purpose. Some redundancy (e.g., 'REQUIRES one of' also implied in parameter descriptions). Still efficient given 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (opportunities[], partition_check, fill_check) and references sibling tool for custom sizing. Covers all aspects of tool behavior and output given its 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds significant meaning: explains event as single-event mode with slug examples, topic as cross-event mode with seed question examples, and the mutual exclusivity constraint (REQUIRES one of). Baseline 3, but description substantially enhances understanding.

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: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It specifies two modes (event/topic), differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by focusing on arbitrage detection.

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 recommends 'event (recommended for a specific market)' and 'topic (for cross-event scanning)', explains what cross-event mode catches that single-event misses, and notes that calling with no args fails. Also mentions sibling tool polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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 details response structure, model families (MODEL_DRIVEN, STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE, CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT), edge calculation, slippage, Kelly sizing, tradeable-edge knobs, caching, and diagnostic output. This far exceeds the basic readOnlyHint/idempotentHint 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 and dense with technical details. While structured with segments and parameter explanations, it could be more concise without losing essential information. Front-loads purpose but verbose in middle sections.

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 explains response top-level fields (by_segment, diagnostics, fed_candidates), caching behavior, edge calculation methodology, and tradeable-edge knobs. All aspects of tool behavior are documented.

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 descriptions. The description adds extra context for most parameters (e.g., min_kelly skipping thin opportunities, min_edge_pp net of slippage, max_spread_pp relation to edge), enhancing understanding 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 clearly states the tool scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, and explicitly targets 'what should I bet on today'. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and bet_research by focusing on data disagreement and edge detection.

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 discovering betting opportunities without paging markets, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. It provides context for Fed bet exclusion and caching, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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 critical behavioral details: data source (daily snapshots), compute method (decay from daily closes), response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), limits (60-day TTL, daily granularity). 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 longer but well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though a minor trim could improve conciseness without losing 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 complexity (time-series data, computed fields, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains response arrays, field meanings (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days), limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps), and computation details. No gaps remain.

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 adds meaning beyond schema: explains 'days' lookback with default and max, 'window' with examples (24hr, 1wk, 1mo) and default. It also documents the response fields in detail, compensating for the missing output 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers targeted questions about edge age and trend, and distinguishes itself from the likely sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence rather than current state.

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 context on when to use the tool with an example: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades.' It implies usage for historical persistence analysis, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. Still, the guidance is clear enough.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral details: walks order book, returns specific fields, warns about partial fills converting arb into directional position. 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 relatively long but well-structured with clear headings (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET). Front-loads purpose. Every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity. Slight verbosity but justified.

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, so description fully covers return values: lists fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc. for single-market; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, etc. for basket). Includes verdict and warnings. Complete 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%. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining dual modes (market vs event), clarifying size_usd interpretation per mode, and explaining default side logic in basket mode. Fully compensates for any gaps.

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 as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check using live order-book depth. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling 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: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above $500. Explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills cause directional risk). Provides clear context and 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?

The description discloses extensive behavioral details beyond annotations, including compatibility_warning conditions, temporal_alignment checks, and skipped_cross counters. It clearly explains what happens in various edge cases (non-equivalent bet shapes, semantically unrelated events, temporal gaps). Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds crucial safety fields.

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 information-dense but well-structured with capitalized sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS). Every sentence contributes unique value, though it is somewhat lengthy. The structure aids readability but could be slightly 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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure, safety fields, and edge cases. It covers compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, and skipped comparisons, making the tool's behavior predictable without needing an 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two parameter modes and how topic shortcuts work, and that explicit parameters override the topic mapping. This clarifies parameter selection 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 computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and identifies the resource (spread between venues), 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 provides concrete guidance on when to use each mode and warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings, indicating when not to use them. It explains that when bet shapes are equivalent the delta is a real signal, otherwise the tool indicates incompatibility. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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 context about scoping to identifier and interaction with other memory tools, 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior, no unnecessary words. Each 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage pattern, scoping, and relationship to 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?

The schema covers the parameter fully (100% coverage). The description adds behavioral nuance: omitting key lists all saved keys, which is not explicit in the schema's property 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 states the tool retrieves a value saved via remember, or lists all keys if omitted. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 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 explains when to use (look up stored context) and that it's scoped to user identifier. It mentions pairing with remember and forget, providing sufficient 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?

The description states that setting mark_read:true will flag returned events as read, modifying state. This contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation (which suggests no side effects), thus violating the annotation contradiction rule.

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 with 4 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured but overall 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 lacking an output schema, the description explains the return structure (source, citation_uri, payload). All parameters are documented in the schema, and the description covers key behaviors. The tool is well-contextualized for a read operation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for type filter (e.g., 'sec_8k') and explains how mark_read works, providing 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's purpose: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies the resource (alerts from subscription feed), the action (pull/return), and details what each alert carries (source, citation_uri, payload). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or recent_changes.

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 an alternative access method ('same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json for scripts and dashboards'), which serves as a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool versus 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 include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context about the fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback with failure conditions, and USPTO soft-fail. 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 well-structured, front-loaded with example queries, and every sentence adds value. It concisely covers the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, and alternatives without 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 the tool's complexity (fan-out to multiple sources, fallbacks, soft-fails), the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameters, output structure, source behaviors, and edge cases. No gaps remain despite lack of 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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra meaning: examples of ISO and relative date formats for 'since', explanation that 'value' can be ticker or CIK, and recommended defaults for monitoring.

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 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months', with example queries like 'What's new with X'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by directing when to use that instead.

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 provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'. It also explains the internal fan-out to multiple sources and gives default values for 'since'.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context: scoping by identifier, persistence differences between authenticated (permanent) and anonymous (24-hour) sessions, going beyond 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: main purpose, usage context, behavioral details, and pairing instructions. Front-loaded with core 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?

For a simple key-value store with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, persistence, and retrieval flow. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.

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 verbs ('Save data the agent will need to reuse later') and resource ('key-value pair'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools recall and forget by naming them.

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 ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and pairs with complementary tools ('Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete'), providing clear 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that each call 'cascades through several lookup endpoints internally' and details return values (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, citation URIs). Does not mention rate limits or authentication, but annotations already provide safety profile.

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 examples and purpose, then efficiently details supported types and outputs. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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 description compensates by fully detailing return values for each type, including citation URIs. Covers use cases and input formats well, but could mention error handling or disambiguation details.

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 2 parameters. Description adds significant meaning: explains each type's output, acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand/generic for drug), and examples, far exceeding the schema's brief 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?

Description clearly states verb ('resolve'), resource ('user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifier'), and scope (supports 'company' and 'drug' types with specific output details). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_entities' and 'entity_profile' by focusing on ID resolution.

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 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and notes that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for different scenarios, 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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by detailing the probe process (ai_visibility_check), the return type (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), and the ordering convention (first entity as subject). 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 two focused sentences with a parenthetical example. No fluff; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action and then details.

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 explains the return structure (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). It covers all aspects: purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and output. For a comparative analysis tool, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by noting the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the subject, and that 'models' can be omitted for default (workers-ai). This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It clearly states it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and ranks them, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison). The example use case further clarifies purpose.

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: competitive AI-marketing audits. It also explains that the first entity is treated as the subject and the rest as competitors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool list naturally offers 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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are provided. The description goes beyond by explaining the composite nature, partial failures, timing of bundlephobia (5-30s), and that sources_failed will list timeouts. 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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. While comprehensive, it is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without losing 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?

No output schema, so description fully explains return values with a summary block, per-advisory details, links, and alternative versions. Also covers partial failures and ecosystem limitations, making it contextually 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% with descriptions already providing clear parameter meanings. The description does not add new information beyond the schema (e.g., scoped packages and default version are already in 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?

The description states the tool is a composite check for evaluating npm packages, specifying verb ('scan'), resource ('dependency'), and the sources it uses (deps.dev, bundlephobia). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on npm package evaluation, a unique function among the listed siblings.

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: 'whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also provides context on limitations: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1' and mentions fallback alternatives for other ecosystems.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds beyond: 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).' 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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then usage context, then pairing advice, then technical details. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return value: 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' It also covers mechanics and edge cases (truncation, flagging), making it complete for an agent.

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 limited value: repeats the 200K char limit for text and gives examples for query and limit, but these are already largely covered by 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: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'inside a fetched record,' and distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by noting how they pair together.

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 when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' Provides alternatives: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages.'

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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations, including rate limits (10/day for SMS), one-time webhook secret, auto-disable after failures, and the requirement for OAuth. However, there is a potential contradiction with the idempotentHint=true annotation, as each call creates a new subscription, which is not idempotent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key action. It organizes information by type and delivery, and each sentence adds necessary detail. While lengthy due to the complexity, it remains efficient 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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, 5 enum types) and lack of output schema, the description covers the return value ('Returns the new subscription id'), prerequisites, supported types, and delivery details. It could mention subscription limits or lifecycle but is otherwise 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?

The description enriches the schema's parameter descriptions by providing concrete examples for each type (e.g., sec_8k with items, fred_series with series_id) and detailed constraints for delivery channels (e.g., SMS must match verified phone, webhook HMAC signing). The schema coverage is 100%, so the description 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 action ('Create a proactive monitoring subscription') and the resource ('live-data event stream'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_subscriptions' and 'unsubscribe' by being the creation counterpart.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions)'), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or offer alternatives, though the type-specific examples guide 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context: it is an onboarding tool that returns example questions with tool and argument shapes, and is safe to 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?

The description is several sentences long but front-loads the purpose and packs useful information. Slightly verbose but earns its length with substantive guidance.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the return format, usage patterns, and when to use it, 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the one optional parameter topic. The description adds value by listing example values (finance, pharma, etc.) and explaining that omitting topic gives a cross-category spread.

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 returns category-bucketed example questions and positions it as the onboarding entry point. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by focusing on what can be asked rather than answering directly.

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 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and advises calling with no arguments or a topic. Provides strong usage guidance but lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions.

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 behavioral context: it ranks by EPSS descending, returns CVEs, and explains EPSS. 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 concise sentences: first states the main function, second explains EPSS and its role. No redundant words, front-loaded 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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (CVEs ranked by EPSS). Parameters are well-documented. Annotations cover safety. Some may desire output format details, but overall sufficient 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 covers both parameters with descriptions (limit and min_score). The description adds value by explaining EPSS as a probability (0-1), which helps understand min_score. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3, plus extra context = 4.

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 lists CVEs most likely to be exploited ranked by EPSS descending, answering a specific question. It distinguishes from siblings like get_epss which targets individual CVEs.

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 (for prioritizing patching) and clarifies EPSS complements CVSS. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear and it provides helpful background.

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 important behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the row is deactivated not deleted, preserving historical events. This complements annotations (destructiveHint=false) and adds value.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action and efficiently convey ownership and deactivation behavior. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, ownership constraint, and the effect on data. No gaps given the low 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention that id is 'returned by subscribe' adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description. No significant value added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying ownership enforcement and the deactivation behavior.

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 a clear usage guideline: ownership is enforced, so only own subscriptions can be canceled. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context is sufficient for 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?

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: returns verdict (confirmed/refuted/etc.), extracted structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta. Annotations already indicate safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and description reinforces this with details on the verification process, with 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 relatively concise, front-loaded with examples of user intents, followed by usage guidance and return details. While it is a single paragraph, it could be slightly more structured, but overall 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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides complete guidance: purpose, scope, return values, and integration context (replaces multiple calls). No gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Only one parameter 'claim' with full schema description coverage (100%). Schema already describes the parameter as 'Natural-language factual claim' with examples. Description adds additional example formats but does not significantly extend 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?

Description clearly defines the tool as verifying natural-language claims against authoritative sources, with specific examples of user intents like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that...'. It distinguishes from siblings by stating it replaces 4-6 sequential calls and is specific to company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL.

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?

States 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear guidance. It also specifies scope (company-financial claims for public US companies), but does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded for other claim types.

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