Gleif

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that probing uses free default model and requires BYO API key for Anthropic with direct payment. Discloses return format (score, confidence, signals, raw_response) and 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?

Single paragraph is well-structured: purpose, conditions, return format, use cases. Front-loaded with primary action. Every sentence adds necessary information. 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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers usage, return format, and cost implication. Lacks explanation of how scoring works (0-100 scale) or what 'confidence' and 'signals' entail. Adequate but could add scoring methodology.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value: explains 'models' can be omitted for default, and '_apiKey' is only needed if Anthropic is used. Provides examples for entity and context. Adds meaning 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?

Clearly states it probes LLMs for brand visibility scoring, specifies default model and API key requirement for Anthropic. Differentiates from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on per-model scoring.

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 mentions use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear. No alternative tool is named, but usage is well implied.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about routing to 5,245 tools and returning structured answers with stable citation URIs, which is valuable but doesn't 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 long but well-organized with examples, comparisons, and a clear 'START HERE' directive. It is front-loaded with the most important guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, though 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?

Given the tool's complexity (large number of sources), the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, provides examples, and describes return format (structured answer with citations). No output schema needed beyond this.

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 multiple aliases described. The description adds examples and states the parameter accepts natural language, going beyond what the schema provides. Baseline was 3, increased for good examples and alias info.

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: answering factual questions about real-world entities, events, or numbers by routing to thousands of sources. It provides numerous examples and distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and 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?

Explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and gives when to use (factual questions) and when to step up to alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant, deep_research for broad/multi-part). Also mentions starting here as default.

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 safe read-only idempotent behavior. The description adds that no candidate is active (matching stable exactly) and that it 'falls back to nothing' as a complete router. This contextualizes the beta nature 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?

The description is compact, front-loads the beta identity and identical behavior, and adds necessary context about candidate status. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy exists.

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 purpose, current state, and usage context relative to stable. However, without an output schema, the response shape is only vaguely referenced as 'same response shape' and 'results compared', leaving the agent potentially uncertain about 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description simply reiterates that it accepts natural language questions. No additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's already clear aliases for 'question'.

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 is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools and arguments, explicitly distinguishing it from the stable sibling. It specifies the purpose: to test candidate routing improvements.

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 advises using it 'when you want the newest routing' and notes it is a full working router with 'experimental edge'. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the contrast with the stable 'ask_pipeworx' 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: costs one extra LLM call, returns structured output with evidence, confidence, source, and refusal reasons. It explains possible refusal reasons and confirms non-destructive read-only semantics 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?

The description is well-structured, starting with the key benefit, then explaining process, usage, and costs. It is moderately long but every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be to condense some details.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return format including all fields (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason) and possible refusal reasons. It explains the extra cost and when to prefer alternatives, making the tool's behavior completely understandable.

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%, with all parameters documented as aliases for 'question'. The description mentions 'Your question in natural language' but adds no substantial parameter-specific information 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It explains the process of selecting the right tool, fetching data, and extracting the answer using only the tool result. It also distinguishes from the sibling ask_pipeworx by noting the extra LLM call and the structured refusal behavior.

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 whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements).' Also provides a clear alternative: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.'

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 provides extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: resolution confidence, cancellation rules, market closed/inactive handling, wide spread handling, short-circuiting on low confidence, and response shapes. Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, which are consistent with the description.

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 excessively long and contains many internal implementation details that may not be necessary for an AI agent. While the front-loading of purpose is good, the overall verbosity reduces 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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers all aspects: input formats, response shapes, error conditions, edge cases (e.g., closed markets, wide spreads), and resolution rules. It leaves no significant gaps for understanding tool behavior.

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 meaningful context: explains the different input forms for 'market', notes the default for 'depth', and clarifies the use of 'include_raw'. This goes beyond the schema but is not exhaustive.

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 input types and the overall workflow. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on single-bet research rather than arbitrage or edge tracking.

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 suggests use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds useful behavioral context: pulls latest 10-K data, handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts by primary metric, returns citation URIs. 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?

Description is front-loaded with example queries and clear directive. Somewhat verbose in detailing each entity type, but every sentence adds value. 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?

Given the complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources), the description covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and how results are sorted. No output schema, but return format is described sufficiently (paired data + citation URIs).

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 meaning beyond enum values and descriptions: for 'company' it specifies revenue, net income, cash, debt; for 'drug' it specifies adverse-event counts, FDA approvals, trial counts. Also explains sorting behavior.

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 states it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, specifying data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA/trials for drugs). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile (single entity lookup) by emphasizing parallel comparisons over sequential 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 to prefer over sequential single-pack lookups and gives example queries. Does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but context is clear that it's for multi-entity comparisons.

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 as safe, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: account requirement, output format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, citation, gaps), hop iteration, contradictions scan, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations (15-90s). 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 lengthy but well-structured, front-loading critical information (account requirement, alternative tool). Every sentence contributes meaningful detail; no fluff. Slightly verbose but justified by 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the full picture: usage, behavior, output format, edge cases (gaps, contradictions), and performance. Nothing evident is missing.

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 with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral differences between depth options beyond enum labels (e.g., number of facets, gap-recovery hop, contradiction scan). While not essential, it enriches 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 uses specific verbs ('grounded multi-source research') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ask_pipeworx. It states the exact resource scope (1369 structured data sources, 5,245 tools) and the type of questions best suited (broad/multi-part queries over structured 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?

Explicitly states when to use (broad/multi-part structured data questions) and when not (breaking news/colloquial current events), pointing to alternatives (ask_pipeworx). Also covers account requirements and tier limitations (paid plan for 'thorough' depth).

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 confirm readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that results include full input schemas with curated examples, ready to call directly, which is consistent and informative 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, no redundancy. 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 the tool's role as a discovery tool, the description covers what it does, when to use, and what it returns (top-N tools with full schemas). Schema coverage and annotations are complete, output format is explained.

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%, all parameters are documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only restates the purpose of the query parameter. Per guidelines, 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 tool's purpose: to find tools by describing data or task, with specific examples of domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the discovery/introductory tool, no other sibling serves this 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 advises to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available' and explains it returns ready-to-call options. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't enumerate when not to use (implied by FIRST).

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, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the multi-source fan-out, specific data fields, and known limitations (USPTO PatentsView API sunset with soft-fail behavior). This goes beyond 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?

The description is information-dense but well-organized, starting with examples and then explaining functionality and limitations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though slightly longer than necessary. It remains efficient for the complexity covered.

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 thoroughly explains the returned data: specific fields from each source, URIs for filings, and soft-fail behavior. It covers edge cases (sunset API, name resolution) and fully prepares the agent for 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds practical guidance: value can be ticker or zero-padded CIK, names not supported. It also explains the type parameter is limited to 'company'. This enhances understanding 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 provides multiple concrete query examples ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme'), specifies the scope (US public companies), and lists return fields (cik, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI). It contrasts with siblings like resolve_entity and chaining single-source lookups, making 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?

Explicitly states when to use (holistic cross-source profile) and when not to use (names not supported, advises to use resolve_entity first). Also provides a clear preference rule: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack… lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.'

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'Delete' which is consistent. No extra behavioral context like error handling or key-not-found behavior. Minimal added value 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?

Two sentences: first defines action, second provides usage guidance. No redundancy, perfectly concise. 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?

Given simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, and complementary tools. Could mention behavior on missing key, but overall complete for its 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?

Only one parameter 'key' with schema description 'Memory key to delete.' Description field adds no additional semantics beyond what schema provides. 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 clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' specifying the action and resource. It mentions pairing with remember and recall but doesn't explicitly differentiate from recall (which retrieves). Purpose is clear and specific.

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: when context is stale, task done, or clearing sensitive data. Doesn't specify when not to use, but complementary siblings (remember, recall) imply usage scope. Adequate 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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=False. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown, which aligns with annotations and provides additional behavioral context. 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 only three sentences that cover action, process, and use cases. Front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant 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's simplicity (URL input, text output) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the result ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'). Could add more about error cases or prerequisites, but still 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% with both parameters described. The description adds extra default values (25 links) and maximum (50) for max_links, which is not in the schema, providing additional semantic clarity.

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 ('generate') and resource ('llms.txt file') and clearly states the input ('any URL'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the output format and use cases like site indexing and auditing competitor AI presence.

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 (client site indexing, personal project drafting, competitor auditing), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would push to a 5.

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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds explicit return fields, providing useful context beyond safety 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Lists key return fields 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?

For a simple fetch tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and outputs without needing error or pagination details. Complexity is low.

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 description reiterates the LEI code format. No additional parameter semantics beyond the schema are provided, 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'full Level 1 LEI record', and the identifier '20-character LEI code', distinguishing it from siblings like get_lei_relationships and search_lei.

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 use when a specific LEI code is known and the full record is needed. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide alternatives, 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about what the hierarchy includes (direct parent, ultimate parent, direct children), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: first defines the action and output, second gives the use case. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, 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?

With only one parameter, simple input, existing output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects. It explains the output structure and use case. Missing details like error conditions or limits are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics for the 'lei' parameter beyond what the schema provides (20-character LEI code). The example in the schema suffices.

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 states the tool fetches Level 2 corporate hierarchy (direct parent, ultimate parent, direct children) for an LEI. It specifies the resource and action clearly, and differentiates from siblings like get_lei (which likely fetches basic LEI data) by focusing on hierarchy.

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 includes a usage context: 'Use to map ownership trees across multinational groups.' This implies when to use it, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use. Nevertheless, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns specific fields and is scoped to the caller's subscriptions and active subscriptions, providing useful 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the action and return fields, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, return fields, and usage scenario. It could mention limitations like pagination, but it is largely 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 coverage is 100% with the only parameter (include_inactive) already documented in the input schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond 'active subscriptions' implicitly referencing the parameter's effect. 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 tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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 instructs to use this tool 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or 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?

Discloses rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, that it is free, and doesn't count against tool-call quota. Annotations provide no contradictions; description adds valuable usage constraints.

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 comprehensive, front-loading purpose and usage, then covering constraints. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameters, rate limits, and what to avoid. An agent can confidently decide when and how to invoke 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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the meaning of 'type' with examples and clarifies 'context' as optional structured data, adding 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: to send feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only feedback mechanism.

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 scenarios: bug for wrong/stale data, feature for missing tools, data_gap for missing data, praise for positive experiences. Also advises against pasting end-user prompts and mentions daily digest processing and roadmap impact.

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. Description adds behavioral context: caching (5min-1h), data source (CF analytics-engine), and that no PII is involved. This adds value 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?

Highly concise: three short paragraphs with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core function, then use cases, then finer details. 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 one-parameter tool, the description covers output (top tools, packs, volume), caching, data source, use cases, and privacy. No output schema needed because return format is implied. Complete for its 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 covers the single enum parameter completely. Description adds semantic guidance: 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This enriches 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 returns 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume' over a configurable window, distinguishing it from siblings like discover_tools or ask_pipeworx. Purpose is 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?

Provides three explicit use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, aligning use cases). Does not mention when not to use, but given the niche nature, 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond by detailing the scanning logic (monotonicity, partition checks), semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), partition filter (placeholder slugs), fill check (realizable vs theoretical edge), and edge cases (skipped_low_similarity, placeholders_filtered). This adds substantial behavioral 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?

The description is detailed and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then splitting into modes. While every sentence adds value, the length is considerable and could benefit from section headers or bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized for the complexity but slightly 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the response structure in detail: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, etc.) and partition_check fields including fill check. It covers use cases, edge cases, and provides enough context for an agent to understand both input and output semantics 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds significant meaning: explains the two modes (event and topic) with examples of acceptable inputs (slugs, full URLs), and clarifies that no args triggers a trending scan. This provides practical context beyond the schema's technical 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: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes between three modes (no args, event, topic) and explains the specific resource and actions, differentiating 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for the strongest per-event... topic for a themed cross-event scan.' It explains the rationale for cross-event scanning and suggests event mode as recommended for a specific market. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings, missing a full 'when not to use' section.

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 extensive behavioral details: caching at KV level (1h keyed on knobs), response structure with by_segment and diagnostics, edge calculation details (edge_pp_net after slippage, Kelly caps, 24h move warning), and specific model logic (e.g., placeholder-slug filter, partition skip rules). This goes well 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?

The description is long (over 400 words) but justifiably so given the tool's complexity (three segments, knobs, diagnostics). It is front-loaded with purpose and well-structured with bold headings. Every sentence adds value, though some details could be 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: top-level fields (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), edge attributes (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction), and tradeable-edge knobs. It covers caching and the rationale for excluding certain opportunities. The description is complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 9 parameters described in the input schema. The description adds context beyond schema: min_liquidity and max_spread_pp are labeled 'Tradeable-edge filters', min_partition_leg_kelly explains its unique per-leg behavior, and slippage_pp suggests adjustments based on fill model. This enriches parameter 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 scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, specifically for 'what should I bet on today'. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the three model families (MODEL_DRIVEN, STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE, CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT) and tradeable-edge knobs, making its unique value clear.

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 ('what should I bet on today') and explains how the tool avoids paging hundreds of markets. It also notes that Fed bets are surfaced but excluded from ranking, and describes how knobs like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp filter opportunities, effectively conveying usage 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?

Description extends beyond annotations by detailing response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), data sources, decay computation, and edge case handling (gaps, signed values).

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?

Long but information-dense; each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical and front-loaded with 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?

No output schema, but description thoroughly explains response format and data fields. Covers parameters, response details, limitations, and data freshness. Fully adequate for a complex 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?

Adds default values and clamp range for 'days', explains 'window' as snapshot family, and links parameters to response behavior. Schema coverage is 100% but description provides essential 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?

Description clearly states the tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (current edges) and others.

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 the use case: comparing fresh wide edges vs. old wide edges. Mentions limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for different 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description adds behavioral details: walks the order book ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), identifies thin legs and forced directional risk for baskets. 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 thorough but somewhat lengthy; however, all sentences add value, and front-loading with purpose aids clarity. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient 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?

Despite no output schema, description lists all return fields and explains risk scenarios. Sufficient for agent to understand behavior and expected 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?

100% schema coverage is complemented by detailed description explaining mutual exclusivity of 'market' and 'event', default logic for 'side' in basket mode, and interpretation of 'size_usd' per mode.

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's purpose: checking realizable vs theoretical edge against live order-book depth. It distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and lists specific return fields.

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: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges signals above ~$500. Warns against partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional position, providing clear do's and don'ts.

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. Description adds valuable behavioral context: compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross counters, and the caveat that real spreads are rare. 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 lengthy (~200 words) and dense, mixing purpose, modes, response fields, and edge cases. It is front-loaded but could benefit from more structure (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning. Not overly verbose given complexity, but not maximally 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 explains response fields and edge cases comprehensively. It covers mandatory fields (top_spreads_pp) and safety features. Could be slightly more explicit about parameter optionality, but overall 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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool computes a cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by specifying 'cross-venue'. Two modes and safety fields are detailed.

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 explains when to use the tool (comparing prices across venues) and provides guidance on modes. It warns that pre-mapped topics often yield warnings, implying caution. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like polymarket_arbitrage 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds scoping to identifier and dual retrieval/list behavior. No contradiction, adds 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?

Two main sentences plus a scoping/pairing sentence. Extremely concise, front-loaded with action, 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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully addresses purpose, usage, behavior, and relationships with sibling tools.

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% (baseline 3). Description restates that omitting key lists all keys, which is already in schema. Adds context of pairing with remember but no new semantic 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a saved value via remember or lists all keys when the argument is omitted. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes from siblings remember and forget.

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 examples of when to use (looking up stored context like ticker, address, notes) and mentions pairing with remember/forget. Lacks 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds details about the feed persistence, mark_read feature, and returned fields, enhancing transparency 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It's structured logically: purpose, return fields, filtering options, note on polling, and 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?

No output schema, but the description explains returned fields. It covers filtering, polling, persistence, and an alternative endpoint. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is fairly complete, though more detail on error conditions could be added.

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 useful context for parameters like type filtering, since (ISO timestamp), and the mark_read/unread_only interaction, 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 the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns recent alerts with specific fields like source, citation_uri, and raw payload. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the alert feed retrieval.

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 mentions 'Polls work fine' and provides an alternative URL for scripts/dashboards, giving context for usage. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios but offers practical 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses parallel fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO soft-fail, and the return structure (grouped changes, total count, 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?

The description is longer than typical but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with user-oriented example queries. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective and well-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?

All three parameters are fully described, the behavior is explained, and the output format is summarized despite no output schema. The description covers what the tool does, its sources, fallbacks, and the alternative 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 significant value: examples of valid values for `since` (ISO dates, relative shorthands), clarification that `type` only supports 'company', and explanation of input formats for `value` (ticker or CIK). 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 clearly states it's a change feed for a company, provides multiple example query patterns, and distinguishes from sibling `entity_profile`. The verb+resource combination is 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?

Explicitly gives example queries indicating when to use, mentions fallback behavior, explains that `entity_profile` is the alternative for static profiles, and describes the `since` parameter formats with recommended default '30d'.

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 behavioral details beyond annotations: persistence duration (24 hours for anonymous, permanent for authenticated), key-value pair structure, and scope by identifier. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false).

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 adding distinct value: purpose, when, how (key-value/scope), persistence/related tools. Front-loaded, 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?

For a simple memory storage tool (2 required params, no output schema), description covers all necessary context: what, when, how, persistence, 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 clear parameter descriptions. Description adds example key formats but does not significantly enrich semantics beyond what 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 verb ('Save'), resource ('data'), and scope ('across this conversation or across sessions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'forget' by explicitly pairing with them.

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 you discover something worth carrying forward'), provides concrete examples (ticker, address, preference), notes scope ('scoped by your identifier'), and mentions alternatives ('Pair with recall...forget').

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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by revealing that each call cascades through multiple lookup endpoints internally, which is behavioral context beyond the 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 moderately lengthy but front-loaded with actionable examples and structured with supported types clearly listed. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing 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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return values for each entity type (including citation URIs), and covers the internal cascading behavior. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke 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?

Input schema covers both parameters with enums and descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining what each type returns (e.g., ticker+CIK for company, RxCUI for drug), supplementing the schema's short 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?

Clearly states it resolves a user-spoken name to a canonical identifier, with specific examples ('What's the ticker for...') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces 2-3 manual 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 FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' providing clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or detail alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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. Description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and returns rankings. No contradictions, but the behavioral context is already covered by 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 purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, and output format. 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?

No output schema, but description lists return fields: score, confidence, signal density. Explanation of input usage is adequate. Could be slightly more detailed on output structure.

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 usage context: 'entities' first treated as subject, 'models' controls which AI models to probe, 'context' disambiguates. This enriches 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?

Description clearly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' with specific verb 'probes' and resource 'competitor AI presence'. Distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on multiple entities and ranking.

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 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and provides an example question. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context makes it clear. Contrasts with single-entity sibling 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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), description discloses partial failure behavior, Bundlephobia's first measurement delay (5-30s), and lists sources_failed will indicate timeouts. 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?

Single paragraph but well-structured with purpose first, then details, then limitations. No wasted sentences. Could be slightly more concise but 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 no output schema, description thoroughly explains return structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternatives) and covers edge cases like delays and fallbacks. Rich annotations complement the description.

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 both parameters. Description adds context: package accepts scoped packages, version defaults to latest, and explains return fields. Provides meaningful addition 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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a composite check for npm packages, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes from other tools by specifying npm-only scope and explicitly mentioning what it returns (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives).

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: 'whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small' and states that for PyPI/Maven/etc. users should use deps.dev directly. This clearly differentiates usage from 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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying return fields and cross-references, 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?

Three sentences, each adding value: first states action, second lists returns, third provides usage hint. No redundancy or 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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It could mention pagination or status filtering, but overall 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each 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 tool searches the GLEIF LEI registry by legal entity name and returns specific fields (LEI, jurisdiction, status, cross-references). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_lei (which likely retrieves by exact LEI) and resolve_entity.

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 context on using the LEI for cross-database resolution, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity against 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?

Discloses embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing (500-char overlapping), and character cap (200K chars with truncation flag). These details are beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), which already indicate safety. 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?

Single paragraph front-loads core purpose and then adds details efficiently. Every sentence adds value; could benefit from slight structural separation but remains clear and non-redundant.

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 three parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: embedding details, truncation behavior, and workflow integration. Missing return format or offset description, but functionality is well-specified.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). Description adds examples for query and clarifies limits (max ~200K chars, 1-20 limit), but does not significantly extend beyond 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?

Clearly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and gives concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article) of input types. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining their relationship.

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 when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and describes ideal scenarios. Mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative workflow, but does not explicitly list 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 indicate mutation and idempotency. The description adds critical context: requires OAuth account, returns subscription ID, webhook secret is one-time, auto-disable after failures, and SMS rate limits. 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 front-loaded purpose and prerequisites, followed by type-specific and delivery details. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a subscription creation tool with 3 params (nested objects), no output schema, the description covers type-specific filters, delivery options, prerequisites, and behavior (e.g., webhook secret retrieval, auto-disable). It is thorough and leaves no ambiguity.

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 enriches each parameter with concrete examples and additional constraints (e.g., 'sponsor or condition required' for clinical_trial, webhook signing details). This adds significant 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 explicitly states 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream' and specifies the resource and return value. It distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe by focusing on creation.

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 context for when to use (setting up monitoring), prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account), limitations (not for anonymous/BYO), and details on delivery channels with constraints (SMS cap, phone verification).

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 safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by specifying the return format (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shape) and that it uses the live catalog. 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 informative and front-loaded with aliases. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description fully explains the return value (category-bucketed questions with exact tool+argument shape) and the use case. It covers all needed context for an agent to select and invoke this 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%, but the description significantly enriches the topic parameter by listing concrete example values and explaining behavior when omitted (full spread). This adds meaning beyond schema definitions.

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: onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by positioning itself as the first tool to use when exploring capabilities.

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 FIRST' and provides when-not-to-use guidance by directing to alternatives like ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, etc. Also clarifies when to pass the optional topic parameter.

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 operation is a deactivation, not deletion, and that historical events remain available. This adds context beyond the annotations, which indicate it is not destructive and is idempotent.

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 main action, and contains every sentence with value. 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the behavioral effect, constraints, and relation to other tools like 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 coverage is 100% and the description briefly mentions 'by id', but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's description of the id parameter. 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 cancels a subscription by id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 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?

It explains ownership enforcement (you can only cancel your own subscriptions) and the deactivation behavior. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is sufficient for deciding 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.

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

Annotations already indicate safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive). The description goes beyond by explaining the dual-pipeline behavior (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded), tolerance parameter implications, and that the tool returns verdict, evidence, and reasoning. 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 moderately long but each sentence contributes meaningful information: usage patterns, dual pipeline, return format, efficiency gain. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important cues. A minor reduction could improve conciseness but current length is justified.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning). It covers both processing paths, parameter behavior, and even efficiency context. Combined with 100% parameter coverage, the description is fully complete 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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by illustrating claim examples, explaining tolerance_pct overrides, and detailing default behavior. It clarifies how the tool handles different claim types, which enriches the schema explanations.

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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verifier against authoritative sources. It provides multiple usage examples ('fact check', 'verify the claim') and distinguishes its function by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, making it highly 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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness' and details two distinct processing pipelines for company-financial vs. other claims. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools, the context is clear enough for appropriate invocation.

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