unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, and explains the consequence (historical events remain available). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only state destructiveHint=false. Idempotency is not mentioned but is covered by the idempotentHint annotation.
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 long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No superfluous words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, ownership constraint, and side effects. It could mention the return value, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the sibling 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that 'id' is a subscription uuid returned by subscribe. The description adds no new parameter details beyond this, so a 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 the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and the resource (subscription). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying the cancellation operation, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') provides a clear constraint on when this tool can be used. It also hints at the workflow by referencing 'recent_alerts' for historical events, but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'list_subscriptions' for finding the id.
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.
Most tools are well-differentiated, with detailed descriptions clarifying their distinct purposes. However, there is some overlap between the multiple 'ask' tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) and between weather tools (forecast, latest_observations, recent_observations, warnings), which could cause confusion. Overall, ambiguity is low.
All 34 tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores (snake_case) pattern. Names are descriptive and predictable, such as 'ask_pipeworx', 'entity_profile', 'polymarket_arbitrage', etc. No mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
The server has 34 tools, which is on the higher side given its broad scope covering weather, company research, prediction markets, and general data queries. While not excessive, it could be split into more focused servers for clarity. The count feels a bit heavy but still manageable.
The tool set covers a wide range of data domains (weather, company financials, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions) with reasonable completeness. Minor gaps exist, such as limited weather coverage (Finland only) and no direct support for non-company entities or unofficial data sources, but core workflows are well-supported.