Folketinget Dk

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds beyond this: that the default model is free (Workers AI), Anthropic requires a BYO key, and the return structure includes per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} plus combined view. 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 a single paragraph but well-organized: starts with action and output, then optional parameters, then use cases. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more terse but efficient overall.

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, no output schema, but rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, which models, how to use the API key, and return structure. Lacks only explicit error handling or rate limits, but those are covered by annotations. Complete enough for effective use.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining the default model, how to use _apiKey (only needed for Anthropic), and that 'context' disambiguates common names. This adds value above 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 uses a specific verb ('Probe') and clearly identifies the resource (LLMs, business/brand/product/topic) and the output (visibility score 0-100 per model). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on probing multiple models and scoring visibility, with optional Anthropic support.

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 states when to use the tool ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains the optional _apiKey for Anthropic. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare with siblings, 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 already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining the tool routes questions to specific sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs, which is beyond annotation scope.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the key message 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'. It provides many examples but could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity. Structured and informative.

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, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what kinds of queries to use, and what to expect (structured answers with citations). 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?

Only one parameter 'question' with schema description 'Your question or request in natural language'. The description provides examples but no additional semantic detail about parameter constraints or format. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 specifies a broad but well-defined scope: answering factual questions about current/historical data from 2,902 tools across 633 sources. It clearly states 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and lists many domains, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are more specialized.

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

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

Explicitly says to prefer over web search for factual questions and gives examples of query phrases ('what is', 'look up', etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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, destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral details: low-confidence resolutions short-circuit with status, closed markets skip fan-out, wide-spread markets carry tradeability notes. 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 relatively long but well-structured with sections for classifiers, fan-out examples, and response shapes. It fronts the core purpose and input format. Every sentence adds useful information, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (result.market, analysis, evidence) with key fields. It covers safety behaviors, response size considerations (include_raw), and even example fan-outs. The tool's complexity is well-addressed.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the market parameter's input formats, the depth enum (quick vs thorough) with meaning, and include_raw with recommended default and rationale (response size). Examples also 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: research a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data in one call. It specifies input formats (slug, URL, question text) and explains the process (resolve, classify, fan-out, return evidence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_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 explicitly lists use cases: 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'. It also includes safety notes (low-confidence short-circuits, closed markets, wide spreads). However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds rich behavioral details: for companies, it pulls LATEST 10-K financials with a fix for off-calendar fiscal years; for drugs, it pulls FAERS, FDA approvals, trials. It also mentions return format and citation URIs.

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 of 5 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient and well-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 no output schema, the description explains return values (paired data + citation URIs) and sorting. Both parameters are fully documented in schema and description. The tool's purpose is fully covered for a comparison 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% but the description adds valuable context: for 'values', it provides format examples (tickers/CIKs vs drug names) and clarifies the 2-5 constraint. It explains that 'type' determines which data is fetched, adding meaning beyond the enum.

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 compares 2-5 companies or drugs side by side. It specifies the data sources and metrics for each type, and distinguishes itself from individual lookups by noting it replaces 8-15 sequential calls.

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 use cases like 'compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger', and rank-by-metric questions. It explains sorting behavior for 'largest'/'most' queries. No explicit when-not-to-use or 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?

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing return structure: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly.' It also states the tool is for initial discovery, not final answers.

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 plus a list of domains, making it concise but packed with information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return behavior, including schemas and examples. Annotations cover safety, and the description provides complete context for 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 well-described parameters. The description reinforces usage by providing examples and context (e.g., 'Natural language description of what you want to do'), adding marginal value over 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: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists many domains and distinguishes itself from sibling tools as a meta-tool for discovery.

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

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

Explicit guidance: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It also lists use cases like browsing, searching, discovering tools by domain.

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, and non-destructive. Description adds rich behavioral details: return fields, filing URIs, fundamentals specifics, patent sunset, news fallback, and LEI via GLEIF. 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?

Single paragraph with good front-loading, but includes technical notes ('Run 6 fix') and nested parentheses that slightly hamper readability. Still efficient for the 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?

Covers all return fields and limitations (patents, names) given no output schema. Missing error cases or rate limits, but sufficient for typical use. Overall 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 descriptions are complete (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining type only 'company', value must be ticker or CIK, and names require resolve_entity. Goes 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?

Explicitly states 'Get everything about a US public company in one call', uses specific verbs, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it replaces 10+ pack 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?

Provides clear when-to-use scenarios (e.g., 'tell me about X') and when-not-to (names not supported, use resolve_entity first). Also notes limitations like patent soft-fail.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data but does not provide further behavioral details beyond what annotations cover.

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

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

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action ('Delete a previously stored memory') and includes usage guidance.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description is fully adequate: it states purpose, when to use, and related tools. 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 a clear description for the 'key' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, though it reiterates the resource type ('memory'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', providing a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('memory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning pairing with 'remember' and 'recall'.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' Also suggests alternatives by directing to pair with '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?

Adds value beyond annotations by detailing the process: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent), so description focuses on operational behavior.

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

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

Four sentences, each purposeful and front-loaded. First sentence defines purpose and audience, second explains process, third output location, fourth use cases. No redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, process, output format, and use cases. Missing details on error handling or URL validation, but overall complete for the tool's scope.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description does not add additional semantics or examples beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

Clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for a URL, specifying the exact resource and output format. Distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on llms.txt generation.

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 concrete use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors), giving clear context on when to use. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the use cases are 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. The description adds that the return object is 'not wrapped in `value`', which is a useful behavioral detail, but does not disclose further traits like error handling or 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and key details. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 fetch-by-id tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what is returned. No output schema is needed as the description clarifies the return format.

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

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

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces usage (e.g., 'expand' to inline related entities) and gives an example, but does not add significant 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Folketinget entity record') with a clear method ('by its numeric id'). An example ('Sag(1)') reinforces the domain. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'query_entity' or 'search_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides a tip for using the 'expand' parameter, but does not mention when not to use or contrast with sibling tools like 'resolve_entity' or 'compare_entities'.

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?

Disclosures beyond annotations: rate-limited (5/day), free, doesn't count against quota, team reviews daily, affects roadmap. Annotations are neutral; description adds crucial behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly lengthy. However, every sentence adds value given the complexity of feedback types and constraints.

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?

Comprehensive for a feedback tool with 3 params and nested objects. Covers all usage scenarios, constraints, and impact. No output schema, but explains what happens to feedback.

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?

100% schema coverage but description enriches: explains enum values, context as optional, message format (1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max). Adds clarity not present in 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken...' Specifies exact types and differentiates from 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?

Explicitly defines when to use each feedback type (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and what to avoid (no end-user prompts). Includes rate limits and quota info.

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 valuable behavioral context: data source ('CF analytics-engine'), no PII included, caching window (5min-1h), and return structure (pack, tool, count). This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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

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

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating output, listing use cases, and adding technical details. No redundant information; front-loaded with key functionality.

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

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

Given the low complexity (single optional parameter, no required params, no output schema), the description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly. It explains what is returned (top tools, packs, volume), caching behavior, and data privacy, leaving 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'window'. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the enum values: 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This clarifies usage and 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 the tool's purpose: returning top tools, packs, and call volume over a recent window. It uses specific verbs ('Returns') and resources ('top tools, top packs, total call volume'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' by focusing on aggregated trending data rather than individual queries.

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

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

The description explicitly lists three use cases (discovering hot data, confirming canonical tools, checking alignment). While it does not mention when not to use or provide explicit alternatives, the listed use cases guide the agent effectively. The sibling context further clarifies differentiation.

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 behavioral details beyond annotations: walks child markets, checks ordering, partition sum ≈1 with 3pp threshold, semantic anchor filtering, placeholder removal. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Well-structured, front-loaded with main purpose, each sentence adds value. Efficient use of words given complexity.

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

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

Covers both modes, internal filters, return structure (opportunities array with gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, partition_check), and edge cases like placeholder filtering. No output schema, but description adequately explains return values.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds significant usage context (internal logic, mutual exclusivity), but does not add new syntactic 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 it finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks, with two distinct modes (event and topic). This distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_kalshi_spread and polymarket_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?

Explicitly describes when to use each mode: event mode for a single event with child markets, topic mode for cross-event patterns. Also explains semantic anchor (Jaccard threshold) and partition filter, providing clear guidance on selection.

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

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) by detailing the three model families with mathematical formulas, caching behavior (cached 1h at KV level), exclusion logic (fed_rate bets), and output fields. This rich behavioral context ensures the agent understands exactly what the tool does and its limitations.

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, starting with the purpose, then breaking into three segments, followed by output fields, knobs, caching, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value for a complex tool. It could be slightly more concise for quick scanning, but the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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 explains the output fields (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, etc.) and the three response segments. However, without an output schema, it lacks explicit details on the response JSON structure (e.g., array under by_segment). It covers usage, parameters, and exclusions well, but the missing structure definition leaves a 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds overarching context for the 'tradeable-edge knobs' (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp, min_partition_leg_kelly) and how they interact, which augments the schema descriptions. This extra context justifies a slight bonus above the 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 states the tool scans Polymarket markets to return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, explicitly targeting a 'what should I bet on today' use case. It specifies the verb (scan/return), resource (Polymarket markets), and outcome (opportunities with disagreements), distinguishing it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage through its unique data source and model families.

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

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

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool ('what should I bet on today') and explains the tradeable-edge knobs for filtering opportunities. It notes that fed_rate bets are excluded from ranking, giving context for when not to rely on this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like polymarket_arbitrage or specify when to prefer alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the return structure (leg-by-leg prices and spread) and the nature of the arb signal, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is well-structured and concise despite covering multiple modes and return details. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the return values (leg-by-leg prices and spread). It covers the two modes and parameter interactions, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds further semantics by explaining the precedence of explicit parameters over topic-mapped ones, which adds value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it's a cross-venue spread tool between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It explains the arb signal and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on this specific cross-venue comparison.

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 details two modes of use (topic shortcuts and explicit pairings) with examples, providing clear guidance on when to use each. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools, but the usage guidance is strong.

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, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns under `value` array, supports OData operations, and notes that fields are in Danish. 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 concise with 4-5 sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently covers key aspects without unnecessary detail.

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 querying, paging, filtering, expansion, select, ordering, and the Danish language context. Minor omission: no mention of response metadata (e.g., odata.context), but sufficient for a data retrieval 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?

Input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds extra value with OData syntax examples, Danish field naming note, and specific filter examples, enhancing usability 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 queries a Folketinget OData v3 entity collection, specifies the data source, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity_by_id by emphasizing flexible OData querying.

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

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

The description implies usage for querying with OData filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_entity_by_id or search_cases. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds scoping (by identifier) and listing-all-keys behavior, which provides additional context beyond annotations.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with action, provides context and pairing info—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?

With one optional parameter, high schema coverage, and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in a workflow (remember/forget pair).

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description already mentions omitting to list all keys. The tool description reinforces the purpose but adds no new parameter detail 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 it retrieves values saved via remember or lists all keys if omitted. It distinguishes from sibling tools remember and forget by explaining its retrieval role.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use (look up stored context) and pairs with remember/forget, but does not explicitly state 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, destructiveHint false. The description adds significant behavioral context: parallel fan-out to multiple sources, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO soft-failure, and output structure. 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 and concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds unique value, covering use cases, source details, parameter guidance, output format, and alternative tool. 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 lack of an output schema, the description explains the return format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). It also covers edge cases like USPTO sunset and GDELT fallback. Combined with annotations and schema, the description fully equips the 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds extra meaning: explains 'since' format (ISO date or relative shorthand), clarifies 'value' accepts ticker or CIK, and confirms 'type' is only 'company'. This enriches 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 starts with a clear question and lists concrete use cases like 'what's happening with X' and 'news on Apple this month'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'entity_profile', making the 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?

Provides explicit use cases and an alternative ('Use entity_profile instead for static profile'). Details the parallel fan-out, fallback behavior, and USPTO limitation, guiding the agent on when and how to invoke the tool.

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 (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds key behavioral details: scoping by identifier, persistence for authenticated users, and 24-hour retention for anonymous sessions. These are not present in annotations and are crucial for correct usage.

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, consisting of four sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, usage, scoping, persistence, and related tools. No redundant or extraneous 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 key-value write tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, scoping, persistence, and relationships to sibling tools. It provides sufficient information for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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

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

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (key and value), including examples. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already offers. With 100% schema coverage, 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 tool saves key-value data for reuse across conversations or sessions, with specific examples (e.g., resolved ticker, user preference). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools recall and forget, satisfying the need for distinction.

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 guidance on when to use the tool ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and contrasts with recall and forget, stating 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete'. It also explains scoping by identifier and persistence differences.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: 'Each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally — using resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups.' This explains the internal behavior and efficiency gain, which goes beyond annotations. 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, starting with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then detailed breakdown of supported types. It is informative without being verbose. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing the internal cascading detail (though that adds transparency). Overall, efficient use of space.

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

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

Given the complexity of entity resolution and the lack of output schema, the description covers what the tool returns for each type, including citation URIs. It mentions the primary use case and internal behavior. It does not compare to all siblings, but the 'use FIRST' guidance provides context. Missing explicit handling of edge cases (e.g., ambiguous names) but the 'auto-disambiguated' note helps.

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 significant value by detailing the supported entity types, their return values (e.g., 'returns ticker + 10-digit CIK + company_name from SEC EDGAR + ...' for company), and acceptable inputs (ticker, CIK, name; auto-disambiguated for company). This goes well beyond the schema's concise 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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers'. It also specifies the primary use case: 'Use FIRST when you have a name but need an ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entity_by_id (which takes an ID) and compare_entities.

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 when you have a name but need an ID', providing strong usage guidance. It also explains the internal cascading and that it replaces manual lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to specific siblings beyond the implied precedence.

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, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized. No contradiction with annotations; description adds significant value.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph of three sentences: purpose, mechanics, use case. No wasted words, clearly structured, and front-loaded with key action. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return format: 'ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'. Combined with schema details (entity count 2-8, optional parameters), the description provides complete context for effective use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond schema by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and the rest as competitors. This enhances understanding of the entities 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 the verb 'compare', the resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities', and the action 'side-by-side'. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (more general). Provides specific context for competitive AI-marketing audits.

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 the tool is useful for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example question. Provides clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. Description adds sorting behavior (most recently updated) and scope, which is valuable additional context.

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, no waste, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance.

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

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

For a simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what is searched (Danish title) and sorting. Could mention output format, but not critical.

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 description doesn't need to add much. It restates the substring matching but doesn't elaborate on top/skip parameters beyond what schema 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 the tool does a substring search over Danish titles of cases/bills, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tool query_entity by noting it's a convenience version for keyword 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to look up legislation/matters by keyword; for full control use query_entity', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it describes the return format (verdict types, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta) and notes that it replaces multiple sequential calls. 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 two paragraphs and contains all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise; some phrases like 'Fact-check, verify, validate, or confirm/refute' are somewhat redundant. Still, it is efficient overall.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's scope (company-financial claims), output (verdict with citation), and efficiency benefit. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes return values.

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 sole parameter 'claim' has a clear schema description with examples. The tool description reinforces this with additional examples and context about the claim format. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the description adds extra value through examples and usage hints, so a 4 is warranted.

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: 'Fact-check, verify, validate, or confirm/refute a natural-language factual claim or statement against authoritative sources.' It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Use when an agent needs to check whether something a user said is true') with examples. It also scopes the tool to company-financial claims for US public companies via SEC EDGAR. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear enough.

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