exchange

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: default model, cost implications (free vs BYO key), return format (per-model and combined view), and disambiguation help via context parameter.

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: first sentence states core purpose, second details models and cost, third describes output. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it probes, how scoring works, model options and costs, output structure. It is fully self-contained.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds further meaning by explaining default behavior for 'models', when to use '_apiKey', and the purpose of '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 probes LLMs for knowledge and scores visibility. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scoring mechanism and default model.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) but does not directly mention when not to use or name alternatives among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool routes to 4,774 tools across 1,242 sources and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. 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 fairly long but well-structured with front-loaded priority statement. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists. It is organized logically with examples and sibling 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?

Given the tool's complexity (many sources, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose, routing behavior, citation format, and appropriate context for use. No gaps are apparent.

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 all parameters described. The description adds example questions but does not provide additional detail about parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 it handles factual questions about current/historical data from many sources, and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research. It gives specific examples of use cases.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use (factual questions, real-world entities) and when to use alternatives (broad/multi-part questions -> deep_research, hallucination-resistant -> ask_pipeworx_grounded). Also provides example queries.

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. Description adds value beyond these by explaining the grounding behavior (extracts answer only from tool results), output structure (answer, evidence, confidence, source, etc.), and refusal reasons. 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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and each sentence earns its place, covering mode, routing, behavior, output, use cases, and cost. Slightly verbose but still efficient. No wasted words.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly explains return values and refusal reasons. It also compares to sibling tool, addresses cost, and covers all behavioral aspects. Fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all 6 parameters described. Description reinforces that parameters are aliases for 'question', but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Description clearly states it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by specifying that it extracts answers only from tool results and returns structured evidence. Verb and resource are precise.

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 use when answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and for high-stakes domains (financial, legal, medical). Also tells when to prefer ask_pipeworx (casual lookups) and notes the cost trade-off of an extra LLM call. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to reiterate these. However, it adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: safety mechanisms (low-confidence match, closed markets, wide spreads), resolution-rule risk, fan-out examples, and response shape details. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is very long and includes many details that, while valuable, make it less concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the extensive examples and edge-case explanations could be condensed or better structured (e.g., bullet points). However, it remains logically organized.

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 (multiple bet categories, fan-outs, safety checks, resolution-rule risk) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input formats, processing steps, response shapes, edge cases (low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads), and resolution-rule risk. Agents can fully understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 substantial context: explains how market input can be a slug, URL, or question text; provides examples; describes depth parameter's effect on evidence sources; explains include_raw's impact on response size. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies the resource (Polymarket bet) and the action (research/pull data). The examples and use cases distinguish it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage, which focus on different aspects.

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 use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also explains the fan-out behavior for different bet categories, guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The depth parameter (quick/thorough) further clarifies usage scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS, FDA, trials), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and sorting by primary metric. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with common query patterns, then explains purpose and details per type. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds information. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes return values ('paired data + citation URIs'), sorting behavior, and edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years). It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly and understand what to expect.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining what data each type pulls, giving concrete examples (tickers, drug names), and clarifying the 'values' parameter format. It complements the schema well without redundancy.

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 explicit user query examples ('Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y') and clearly states it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It distinguishes itself from sequential lookups and specifies data sources per entity type, making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.

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

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

The description explicitly advises to always prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and provides concrete use cases. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tools (entity_profile, ask_pipeworx) imply alternatives for non-comparison tasks.

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 context about using current rates and returning both converted amount and exchange rate, which is valuable 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 one sentence for purpose and a second for return info. Front-loaded and concise with 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?

Given rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return values. No gaps for typical converter 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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Convert an amount from one currency to another at current rates', specifying the verb (convert) and resource (currency amount). It distinguishes from siblings like get_rate, get_historical_rate, and get_currencies.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicitly stated. No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_rate or get_historical_rate. Siblings are present but not referenced.

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

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

Discloses account requirement, paid tiers, performance expectation (15-60s), and critical behavior about gaps (never invented). This adds significant value beyond annotations which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world nature. 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?

Description is dense but well-organized, starting with requirements, then core function, then usage guidance, then performance. Every sentence adds value, though slightly long. Could be tightened but remains clear and structured.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, citation, gaps). It also covers prerequisites, alternatives, and expected latency. Complete for the tool's complexity and context.

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 meaningful semantics: explains depth enum values in terms of facets (3,5,8) and ties thorough to paid plan, and clarifies that question can be broad/multi-part. This enriches understanding 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 defines the tool as performing grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources, decomposing questions, and returning a findings packet with citations. It explicitly distinguishes from open-web search and siblings like 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not to (single lookup, breaking news). Gives alternative tools (ask_pipeworx) and notes account requirements. Includes concrete examples of suitable queries.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed,' which provides useful 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?

The description is relatively long but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and domain list. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter. Still well-structured for an agent.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (names, descriptions, schemas). It covers usage, examples, and aliases. With 6 parameters and many siblings, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining aliases ('Accepts task, q, description, search as aliases') and providing examples, reducing ambiguity beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explains the output (top-N tools with full schemas). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific data retrieval or analysis tasks.

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 you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear given the sibling list covers many specific 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?

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it details the data sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), return fields, and notes the USPTO PatentsView API sunset soft-fail. There is 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 but well-structured, front-loading example queries and listing key data sources. While longer than some, every sentence earns its place; no verbosity.

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 lack of output schema, the description thoroughly covers return fields and data sources, making it complete for an agent to understand what will be returned.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by explaining the 'value' parameter accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK, and explicitly states names are not supported. This goes beyond the schema enums.

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 provides a full cross-source profile of a US public company, with example queries like 'tell me about X' or 'company profile for Microsoft'. It distinguishes from siblings by stating it should be preferred over chaining individual lookups.

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 prefer this tool over chaining single-pack lookups for holistic views, and specifies that names are not supported—use resolve_entity first. This provides 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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context on appropriate use cases (stale context, done task, sensitive data) but does not elaborate on side effects beyond deletion.

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 efficient sentences: first states the action, second provides usage guidelines. 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 delete-by-key tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and related tools completely.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides for the single key 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?

The description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 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 states when to use: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' Also suggests pairing with related tools remember and recall.

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. Description adds valuable context: fetches page, extracts title/descriptions/links, produces standard markdown. No contradiction.

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

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

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded main purpose, then use cases. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given 2 params, full schema coverage, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers purpose, input, output format, and use cases. Sufficient for agent understanding.

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. The tool description does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what schema provides, so 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?

Description uses specific verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt file', identifies target users and distinct action (fetches, extracts, emits), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like visibility checks or scanning 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 lists three use cases (client indexing, personal project drafting, competitor auditing). While it does not state when not to use, the scenarios are clear and aligned with the tool's function.

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, covering the safety and behavior profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral details beyond stating the output includes codes and names, which is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the action ('List all supported currencies'), and every word serves a purpose. No unnecessary information.

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

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

Given the tool has no parameters, a rich output schema (not shown but exists), and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It states the purpose and provides usage guidance, fully meeting the agent's needs for this simple 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by mentioning that the output includes 'with codes and full names,' which helps the agent understand what to expect, compensating for the lack of params.

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

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

The description clearly states 'List all supported currencies with codes and full names,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_rate and convert by focusing on listing currency metadata rather than exchange rates.

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 'Use to verify currency codes before converting or checking rates,' providing clear context and an implied when-to-use scenario. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns 'historical rate and date', which is consistent. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate source, date range limits) are disclosed. The description does not contradict annotations.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, the rich schema (100% coverage, output schema), and complete annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, and the structured fields handle the rest. No additional information is necessary 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., it mentions 'format: YYYY-MM-DD', which is already in the schema's description for 'date'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'exchange rate between two currencies on a specific date'. It specifies the key parameters (currencies, date) and indicates the output (historical rate and date). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_rate' or 'convert', which could cause confusion about when to use this tool versus those.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for historical rates only, nor does it suggest using 'get_rate' for current rates or 'convert' for conversions. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name and date parameter, which is insufficient.

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 no destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns rate value and timestamp, providing useful 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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 has an output schema, the description sufficiently notes the return fields (rate and timestamp). No further details needed for such a simple tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds examples (USD, EUR) but does not provide significant additional meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool gets the current exchange rate between two currencies, using specific parameters from and to. It distinguishes from siblings like get_currencies and get_historical_rate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_historical_rate or convert. The description only states what it does, without context on appropriate scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns only the caller's subscriptions and specifies the exact fields returned. This additional context is useful, though not critical given the strong 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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous words, fully front-loaded with the most critical 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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it returns (field list), and when to use it. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, making the definition 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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter (include_inactive) with a clear description. The tool description mentions 'active' subscriptions, which aligns with the default false, but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool lists the caller's subscriptions and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, params, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, which modify subscriptions.

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

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

The description provides specific use cases: review before adding more subscriptions or find an id to cancel. It implies using subscribe/unsubscribe for modifications, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool. Sibling differentiation is clear.

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

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

Annotations do not provide behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions rate limiting, quota, and that the team reads digests daily, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe what happens to the submitted data (e.g., stored, sent) or the response format.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph but well-structured: it starts with the main verb, then usage scenarios, then guidelines and behavior. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

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

For a feedback tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage, guidelines, and rate limits. It lacks a mention of what the return value or confirmation looks like, which is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds extra guidance: 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt,' which adds semantic 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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies the verb 'tell' and the resource 'Pipeworx team', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only feedback tool among many tool-related utilities.

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

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

The description provides explicit scenarios: 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)...' and specifies what not to do: 'don't paste the end-user's prompt.' It also gives context on rate limits and quota, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), the description adds that data is self-aggregating, no PII, and cached 5min-1h depending on window. This gives useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences plus three bullet points, each earning its place: first sentence states core function, second outlines use cases, third provides source and caching details. Front-loaded and 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 read tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and data source, but lacks any detail on the structure or format of the returned data (e.g., how many items, sorted or not). Minor gap.

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 parameter 'window' already has a description and enum. The description rephrases the same guidance (short vs long windows) but does not add new semantic information 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?

Clearly states the tool returns top tools, top packs, and call volume over a window. The verb 'returns' and resource 'Pipeworx trending' are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by focusing on aggregated usage 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?

Provides three concrete use cases in bullet points: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, and checking alignment with agent needs. Implicitly guides when to use, but does not explicitly name alternatives 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds significant behavioral details: semantic anchor with similarity threshold, partition filter with placeholder fraction, and fill check against CLOB depth. No contradictions with annotations; all added context aligns.

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 lengthy with multiple paragraphs, but well-structured using bold headers (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK). Front-loads core purpose. Could be more concise, but the 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 the tool's complexity (arbitrage detection, multiple modes, partition checks, fill checks), the description covers edge cases, response structure, and recommended usage. No output schema, but response fields are described. Sufficient for a complete understanding.

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 parameter descriptions. Description adds value by explaining mode behaviors, recommended usage, and examples (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026'). This goes beyond schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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

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

Description clearly states 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It specifies the resource and mechanisms, and distinguishes between trending_scan, event, and topic modes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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

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

Explicitly provides when to use no args (trending_scan), event (for a specific market), and topic (for cross-event scanning). Recommends event mode for specific markets and mentions polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. This gives 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?

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral context: model families, cache duration (1h), response segments (by_segment, diagnostics), and caveats (Fed bets excluded from ranking, unreliable signal). 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 very long and detailed, which provides completeness but sacrifices conciseness. It does front-load the purpose and provides structured information, but every sentence may not be strictly necessary. A more streamlined version would improve this dimension.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (by_segment, diagnostics, fed_candidates) and behavioral traits. It covers all necessary aspects for correct tool invocation and understanding of outputs.

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 3. The description adds value by explaining each parameter's purpose beyond the schema, e.g., min_edge_pp 'Edge is evaluated NET of slippage', min_liquidity 'executing the edge would walk the book past breakeven'. This 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: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'Polymarket markets', and distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx data discrepancies.

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 the use case: 'Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets.' It provides filtering knobs but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings like polymarket_edge_tracker or polymarket_fill_risk. However, the 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant detail: snapshot-based data, 60-day TTL, daily close computation, cache-miss gaps, and response structure. 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 thorough but remains focused and front-loaded with purpose. It could be more structured (e.g., sections), but every sentence adds value and there is 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 no output schema and two simple parameters, the description fully explains the response format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes), and behavioral nuances (gaps imply no scan). It is complete for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats default values (days=14, window='1wk') and adds lookback bounds and snapshot family concept, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' and differentiates from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on telemetry rather than current edges.

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

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

The description provides strong context on when to use the tool (e.g., distinguishing between fresh and old edges) and explains the value of the telemetry. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when NOT to use, the context is clear and helpful.

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, so safety is known. The description adds rich behavioral context: walking the order book ladder, returning specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and warning about forced_directional_risk and thin_legs. 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 with sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) and front-loads the main purpose. While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc. for single; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg detail, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk for basket). It also explains risk of unhedged positions. 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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds significant context beyond schema: explains dual mode (market vs event), default values, interpretation of size_usd in each mode (spend vs settlement notional), and side defaults. This is valuable for correct usage.

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 checks 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes with specific actions. It explicitly references sibling tools polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, positioning itself as a prerequisite risk check.

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

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

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500') and explains why (thin book risk, partial fill directional risk). It does not provide explicit when-not-to scenarios, but the 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 indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes far beyond by detailing response fields (leg-by-leg prices, spread[], compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters) and explaining cases where spreads are not meaningful (non-equivalent bet shapes, temporal gaps). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then modes, response details, and safety fields. Each section adds necessary context. Minor redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' appears twice), but overall effective.

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 (cross-venue, multiple modes, safety fields) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, response structure, edge cases (compatibility warning, temporal alignment), and interpretation of spread values. 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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the two-mode logic (topic vs. explicit) and listing the allowed topic values. It clarifies that explicit parameters override topic mapping, which is not obvious from 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 computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same question, with two distinct modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' by focusing on cross-venue comparison. The verb 'spread' and resource description are specific and 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 explains when to use each mode (topic shortcuts vs. explicit tickers), warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings, and advises that pre-mapped does not guarantee tradeability. It also clarifies that spreads are mathematically meaningless when temporal alignment is false.

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 scoping detail ('Scoped to your identifier') beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Also clarifies behavior of omitting key to list all keys. 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?

Two sentences with a third line providing usage pairing. Every sentence is informative, no fluff. Front-loaded with primary action.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, description is complete. Covers purpose, usage, scoping, and pairing with siblings. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter 'key'. Description adds meaning by explaining that omitting key lists all keys, which is not explicit in schema. Examples further clarify usage.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys'. It uses specific verbs (retrieve/list) and resources (values/keys), and distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'forget' through pairing hints.

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?

Description advises using the tool 'to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch'. It pairs with 'remember' and 'forget', giving clear usage context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but implied by 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?

Description reveals important behaviors beyond annotations: mark_read flags events as read, affecting future calls. It also specifies return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and confirms read-only, idempotent nature.

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. Each sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, filtering, state change, and polling/alternative access.

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

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

Covers return fields, filtering, state change, and polling suitability. Lacks explicit mention of ordering (most recent) but implied by 'recent alerts'. With no output schema, the return description is adequate.

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

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

Description adds context for parameters, e.g., using 'sec_8k' for type and explaining mark_read effect. Schema already covers each parameter, but description provides practical examples and behavioral insights.

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 pulls fired events from the subscription feed and returns recent alerts. It specifies the verb 'pull' and resource 'fired events', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions which manage subscriptions.

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

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

The description notes that polls work fine and provides an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), description details fan-out to multiple sources, fallback logic (GDELT→GNews), USPTO soft-failure, date format options (ISO/relative), and return structure (grouped changes, total_changes, 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?

Description is dense but well-organized, starting with usage scenarios and proceeding to technical details. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but every sentence adds value with 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?

Given complexity (multiple sources, fallbacks, date formats, no output schema), the description fully covers behavior, edge cases (USPTO soft-fail), return structure, and alternative tool. All necessary information is present.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value: clarifies 'since' examples ('30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring), 'value' accepts ticker or CIK, and 'type' currently only supports 'company'. Adds helpful context 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 provides a 'change feed for a company' by querying multiple sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO) within a given time window. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile' for static profiles.

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

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

Provides explicit example queries ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and states when to use 'entity_profile' instead (for static profile regardless of window). Also describes fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: storage is scoped by agent identifier, persistence differs for authenticated vs anonymous sessions (24 hours for anonymous), and it's a store operation 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 a single, focused paragraph with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidelines and behavioral details efficiently.

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 required params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, persistence, and relationship to sibling tools. It leaves no significant gaps for an AI 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 clear descriptions for both key and value parameters. The description reinforces the key-value pair concept and provides example key patterns (e.g., 'subject_property'), adding contextual 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 verb 'save' and the resource 'data' in a key-value store. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'forget' by explicitly mentioning the purpose of carrying forward information.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. It also gives alternatives by mentioning 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete' and details on persistence for different session types.

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, etc. The description adds context: internally cascades through several lookup endpoints, replaces 2-3 manual lookups, and details return formats (ticker, CIK, 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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then details per type. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, covering all necessary aspects efficiently.

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 return values for both entity types, including citation URIs. It covers input requirements, internal behavior, and use cases. It is complete for the tool's complexity and supported types.

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 substantial meaning beyond schema: explains input formats per entity type (e.g., for company: ticker, CIK, or name; for drug: brand or generic), and what each type returns. This provides critical context for correct parameter usage.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs ('resolve') and resources ('name to canonical identifier'), with explicit examples ('ticker for…', 'CIK for…') and clear distinction from siblings by focusing on ID resolution. It clearly states the tool's purpose and supported entity types.

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 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It provides clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes many tools, but the description gives enough guidance for correct invocation.

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 no destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, treats the first entity as 'subject', and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. No contradictions.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes meaning: purpose, method, use case, output. 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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior well: it explains the probing mechanism, ranking, and output fields (score, confidence, signal density). It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return format, but overall it is complete enough 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 some value by noting the first entity is treated as 'subject' and mentioning models and context, but it largely restates schema info without adding significant detail.

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+resource ('Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side') and distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison). It clearly explains the tool's function and use case.

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

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

The description provides explicit context for use ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear and the purpose is well-defined.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses the composite nature, potential delay for first measurement on new versions, and graceful degradation with partial failures. 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 a single paragraph but packs essential information efficiently. Could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds value and it's not overly verbose.

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 (composite check, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, limitations, error handling, and return fields (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives). Completely adequate for an 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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying scoped package syntax and default version behavior, though schema already defines these. Minor additional 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: a composite check for evaluating npm packages combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It clearly differentiates from siblings by specifying NPM-only scope and providing alternatives for other ecosystems.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases ('is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and clearly states when NOT to use it (non-NPM ecosystems, directing to deps.dev:version directly). Also notes graceful degradation and potential 5-30s delay for new versions.

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 safe, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds rich detail: embedding model (BGE-base-en), search algorithm (cosine over 500-char windows), 200K char cap with truncation and flagging. No 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?

Concise, front-loaded purpose, then usage, then technical details. 5 sentences with 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?

Explains return format (passages, offsets, scores) despite no output schema. Covers constraints and pairing. Could explicitly list return fields but sufficient for understanding.

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 minor extra context (examples for query, cap details for text) but does not significantly enhance beyond schema descriptions. 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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article). Distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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

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

Explicitly describes when to use: when record is too large for prompt. Mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a subscription (write operation), consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It explains delivery channel behaviors such as webhook HMAC signing and auto-disable after 10 consecutive failures. Idempotency is implied by annotations but not explicitly stated; however, the description does not contradict 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 well-structured with clear separation between subscription types and delivery channels, and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value; minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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

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

The description covers prerequisites, subscription types with parameter examples, delivery channels, return value (subscription id), and limitations (SMS cap, phone verification). No output schema exists, but the return value is adequately specified. The tool is complex, but the description provides complete context.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by providing concrete examples for each subscription type (e.g., sec_8k items codes, polymarket_edge topics) and detailing delivery channel options including webhook HMAC signing. This fully compensates for the schema's generic 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 that the tool creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns the new subscription id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts by specifying the creation aspect and the stream nature.

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

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

The description explicitly states the requirement for a Pipeworx OAuth account, lists supported subscription types with example parameters, and describes delivery channels with limitations (e.g., SMS 10/day cap). While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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 beyond annotations, such as that it returns 'category-bucketed example questions' drawn from a live catalog, and that it serves as an onboarding tool. It does not contradict annotations; it complements them with specific output details.

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 front-loaded with alternative phrasings. Every sentence adds value: it explains purpose, output, usage, and parameter. Slightly longer than necessary but well-structured and easy to parse.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the output format (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shape) and the parameter behavior. No additional information is needed for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter described in the schema. The description reiterates the schema information: 'Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic to focus.' It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so score is at baseline 3.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as the onboarding entry point for a new agent. It lists alternative phrasings that users might ask, states it returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shape, and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by saying 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.'

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when the agent just connected and wants to know what is worth asking. It gives clear usage instructions: call with no arguments for full spread, or pass a topic to focus. It also advises to use this first before other meta-tools, providing good guidance on when to use 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 indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent. Description adds value by specifying ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior, complementing 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?

Three short sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with key action. 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?

For a single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, description fully covers purpose, constraints, side effects, and cross-reference to recent_alerts.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage; description mentions 'id' and its source ('returned by subscribe'), adding minimal extra context. 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?

Description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id.' Verb 'cancel' and resource 'subscription' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Explains ownership enforcement and that cancellation deactivates rather than deletes. Implicitly guides when to use (to cancel own subscription). No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it uses SEC EDGAR + XBRL as sources, returns a verdict with confidence levels, and provides a citation and delta. 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 concise yet rich, front-loading trigger examples, then stating purpose, use case, scope, and return value in just a few sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose with 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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the return value (verdict, actual value, citation, delta) and scope limitation. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for an 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 single parameter 'claim' is fully described in the schema with examples (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the natural-language format and domain restrictions, which helps the agent understand what constitutes a valid claim for this tool.

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 as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and provides concrete examples of trigger phrases. It distinguishes itself by specifying the domain (company-financial claims) and noting that it replaces multiple sequential calls, differentiating from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing direct usage guidance. It also specifies the current scope (v1 supports company-financial claims), implicitly indicating when not to use it. No explicit alternatives are listed, but the sibling context and scope make it clear.

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