list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 well-covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned, but it does not disclose behavior like default filtering of inactive subscriptions (though the schema covers the include_inactive parameter). This is a reasonable addition beyond annotations but not extensive.
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 core action, and includes a concise return-field list plus a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only tool with rich annotations and a self-explanatory schema. The description clarifies the return format and typical use cases, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list.
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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (include_inactive), with a clear description in the schema itself. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so this meets the baseline.
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 lists the caller's active subscriptions and even enumerates the fields returned (id, type, params, etc.), making its purpose unmistakable. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on listing existing 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 explicit context: it is for reviewing current monitoring before adding more subscriptions or for finding an id to cancel. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the use case is clear and practical, effectively guiding when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, discover_tools/suggest_questions/pipeworx_trending all serve discovery, and multiple Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) find opportunities. Descriptions help but an agent could easily pick the wrong data-query tool.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, mostly verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim) and prefix groups (fintech_*, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile or recent_changes are noun phrases but still readable and predictable.
34 tools is excessive for a coherent set; the server appears to bundle a general-purpose data research platform, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions under one 'Fintech Intel' name. Many meta-tools could be split into separate servers, and the count burdens an agent with unnecessary choices.
The tool surface covers the fintech/data-intel domain thoroughly: SEC filings, FDIC, FDA, economic data, real estate, prediction markets, monitoring subscriptions, and memory. Gaps are minor—e.g., no direct tool for historical stock charts, but the router (ask_pipeworx) handles such queries.