read_feedRead a curated gaming feed by its id (from list_feeds). Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary). Optionally filter items by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Curated feed id (from list_feeds). | |
| limit | No | Max items (1-50, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword filter over item title/summary. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (title, link, published, summary), 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?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and efficient mention of return format and optional filtering. No unnecessary 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 rich annotations, the description covers purpose, return format, and filtering. It doesn't mention limit default or range, which is in schema, so it's adequate but not exhaustive.
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's mention of 'curated gaming feed' and 'normalized items' adds context but does not significantly expand on parameter usage 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 reads a curated gaming feed by ID from list_feeds, returning normalized items. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the source of feed IDs and the normalized output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies using list_feeds first to get the feed ID, and mentions optional keyword filtering. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like fetch_feed or provide when-not scenarios.
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 have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research—all of which route questions to the same underlying catalog. The polymarket_* family also has several opportunity-scanning tools (edges, arbitrage, bet_research) that agents could confuse without reading the long descriptions carefully.
All 34 tool names use lowercase snake_case with a clear verb-first or noun-descriptive pattern (list_feeds, read_feed, remember, resolve_entity, polymarket_arbitrage). Even compound names like ai_visibility_check and ask_pipeworx_grounded follow a predictable, consistent style. No mixed conventions or camelCase deviations.
34 tools is far more than the apparent 'Gaming Feeds' scope suggests—only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed actually relate to gaming feeds. The rest form a sprawling data-research and prediction-market suite, creating a severe mismatch between the server name and its actual tool surface.
Viewed as a general Pipeworx data-access platform, the tool set is quite complete: question routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, alerts, feed reading, and tool discovery are all covered. The only notable gaps are feed management (no create/update/delete for custom feeds) and a few odd add-ons like generate_llms_txt that feel outside the core domain.