Gsa Perdiem

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the cost model (free default, pay for Anthropic) and the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response, combined view). No contradictions.

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

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

The description is concise—four sentences—with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then covers model options, return format, and use cases 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. It covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to configure models, and what results look like. No gaps for a read-only probe 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between models and _apiKey, and providing examples for entity and context. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility 0-100 per model. It specifies use cases like AI-marketing audits and pre-launch brand checks, distinguishing it from siblings such as scan_competitor_ai_presence or ask_pipeworx.

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

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

The description explains when to use the default model (free Workers AI) and when to bring an Anthropic API key. It implies usage for brand visibility checks but does not explicitly exclude other uses or name alternatives among siblings.

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

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

Adds significant behavioral detail: routes to 3,411 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency. The description complements annotations well.

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

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

Well-structured with key preference first, then mechanism, then usage cues, then examples. Slightly long but justified by the tool's complexity and scope.

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

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

Covers most aspects: purpose, when to use, return format, mechanism. Missing possible limitations like rate limits or coverage gaps, but overall adequate for a read-only, idempotent 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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions; description provides usage examples but no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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's purpose as a routing question-answering system with citations, explicitly contrasts with web search, and lists many domains. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on factual queries to verified sources.

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 preference over web search and lists types of questions (SEC filings, FDA data, etc.) and example usage phrases. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or mention when to use sibling tools like 'remember' or '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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond: explains fan-out examples, response shapes, resolver contract, parent event extractor, news fields, safety mechanisms (low-confidence matches, closed markets, wide spreads). 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 thorough but slightly verbose with many examples and detailed fields. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically. Every sentence adds value, though some details could be condensed. Overall well-organized.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all aspects: inputs, process, outputs (including fields like market_match_confidence, parent_event, news with fallback info), and edge cases (low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads). Leaves no significant gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the market parameter accepts multiple formats (slug, URL, question text), the depth parameter's quick vs thorough behavior, and include_raw's tradeoff between summary and full payloads. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies inputs (slug, URL, question text), process (resolve, classify, fan out), and output (evidence packet + comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage.

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

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

The description explicitly says when to use: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude use cases or recommend alternatives among sibling tools.

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 show readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. Description adds specifics: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with citation URIs.

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

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

Single paragraph with front-loaded purpose and examples. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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 explains return format (paired data + citation URIs) and handles edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years). Complete for a comparison tool with 2 parameters and clear annotations.

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. Description adds meaning by explaining type enum values and providing concrete examples for values array (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug), and constraining min/max items.

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 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call', providing specific verb and resources, and distinguishing from sequential lookups with examples like 'Compare X and Y'.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', giving clear guidance on when to use the tool 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds important behavioral context: it returns top-N most relevant tools with full schemas and examples, ready to call directly without second lookup. Also discloses default limit (20) and max (50), which aligns with annotations and provides actionable detail.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement ('Find tools by describing the data or task') and efficiently lists use cases. While a bit long, every sentence adds value: examples, return format, usage advice. It could be slightly tighter but is well-structured for agent consumption.

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 parameter complexity (6 params, 100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and key parameters. It lacks details on pagination or error handling, but for a discovery meta-tool, the provided information is sufficient and 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the query parameter with examples and listing aliases (task, q, description, search). Also describes the limit parameter's range. This goes beyond the schema's 'description' fields, earning a 4.

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

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

The description clearly states it finds tools by describing data or task, lists specific domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns tool options ready to call. It also explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available' which differentiates it from domain-specific siblings.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...') and when to call first ('Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set'). Provides clear context with examples, effectively guiding the agent on when to invoke this tool versus 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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds details about parallel fan-out across sources, fallback behavior for patents, and specific return fields, providing significant 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 dense but well-structured, starting with usage examples and flowing into details. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value, and the front-loaded examples help quick comprehension.

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 (multiple sources, multiple return items) and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what the tool returns, including specific data fields, URIs for filings, and soft-fail behavior. No gaps detected.

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 adds meaning by explaining accepted values (ticker or CIK), clarifying that names are not supported, and hinting at future entity types. This goes well beyond the 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 it provides a full cross-source profile of a US public company, listing specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF) and return fields. It distinguishes from siblings by recommending preference over chaining single-pack 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 states when to use (user asks for holistic view, 'tell me about X', etc.) and when not (names not supported, use resolve_entity first). It also advises preference over chaining other lookups and notes limitations like patents API sunset.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' is consistent. The description does not add behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them either.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no wasted text.

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

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

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. No gaps remain.

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 the 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete.' The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' It identifies the specific verb (delete) and resource (memory), and distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' through explicit pairing.

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 contexts for use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it fetches the page, extracts content, and emits a specific format. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description adds meaningful context.

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

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

The description is concise—few sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is easy to read.

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 two parameters and rich annotations, the description fully covers the purpose, process, output format, and use cases. No output schema exists, but the description explains the output format adequately.

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 'url' and 'max_links'. The description adds beyond the schema by explaining the extraction process and providing a default for max_links. This helps the agent understand parameter roles without relying solely on schema labels.

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

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

The description specifies the action (generate llms.txt), the resource (any URL), and the process (fetch, extract, output markdown). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on the specific llms.txt file generation.

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

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

The description lists explicit use cases: getting a site indexed by AI, drafting for your project, or auditing competitor AI visibility. While it doesn't state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for most agents.

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

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

Annotations indicate no destructive or idempotent behavior. The description adds context: it is non-destructive, rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and does not count against tool-call quota. This goes 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 concise (~100 words), well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by usage conditions, and then behavioral specifics. 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 complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what to do, when, how to format input, rate limits, and what happens to the feedback. 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the enum values (bug, feature, etc.) in context and provides examples for optional context fields. However, the schema already includes good 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: to submit feedback (bugs, features, praise) to the Pipeworx team. It uses specific verbs ('tell') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are analytical/research-focused.

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 details when to use the tool: for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, or praise. It also provides guidance on how to structure the feedback (referencing tools/packs, not end-user prompts) and notes rate limits and quota exemption.

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 true. Description adds significant behavioral details: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, caching (5min-1h), and aggregation method (pack, tool, count). 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?

Two sentences plus concise bullet list. Front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds unique value with 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, use cases, data source, caching, and parameter semantics. The returned items (top tools, top packs, total call volume) are explicitly listed.

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 enum hints. Description adds semantic guidance on window choice ('shorter surfaces hot right now, longer shows steady-state'), going beyond the raw enum list.

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

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

Clearly states the tool returns trending usage data (top tools, packs, call volume) aggregated from other AI agents. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' by focusing on real-time popularity rather than static discovery.

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

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

Lists three specific use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, checking alignment). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, the purpose is so clear that usage context 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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: walking child markets, monotonicity checks, partition sum computation, Jaccard similarity filtering, and handling of placeholder slugs. 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 well-structured with a clear hierarchy: requirement, purpose, mode-specific details, semantic filters. It is verbose but each sentence contributes necessary information for a complex tool. Could be slightly more concise, but overall 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 the tool's complexity (two modes, multiple checks) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return structure (opportunities array, partition_check fields) and explaining edge cases (placeholder slugs, low similarity). The description is comprehensive.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds extra context: usage recommendations, examples, and explanation of behavioral differences. This adds value beyond the schema definitions, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes between single-event and cross-event modes with specific use cases, and the name aligns with the described functionality. No other sibling tool appears to perform the same task.

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 each mode: 'event (recommended for a specific market)' and 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. It also explains the trade-off between modes, but does not compare to sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' or 'polymarket_kalshi_spread'. Usage guidance within the tool itself is strong.

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

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

Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: caching at 1h on KV, diagnostics for empty segments, exclusion of Fed bets from ranking, and explanation of edge computation and knobs. 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 well-structured with a clear preface, segments, knobs, and response layout. However, it is verbose, especially in detailing the three segments with mathematical descriptions. While informative, it could be more concise without losing essential 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure: by_segment with three detailed segments, fed_candidates/fed_note, and diagnostics. It also covers caching and knob effects, providing all necessary context for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to several parameters (e.g., min_partition_leg_kelly explains why min_kelly doesn't apply to partition arbs, slippage_pp explains default choice and trade-offs). This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx-based edge detection and explicitly stating its purpose as 'what should I bet on today', making it unambiguous and distinct.

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 ('scan top markets', 'discover opportunities without paging') and provides detailed knobs for filtering (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp, etc.). While it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use, it implies usage by describing the three segments and their conditions, giving clear context for appropriate invocation.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context: response structure (leg prices, spread), safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment), and skipped cross details. 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and using clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS). Every sentence adds information, though it is relatively long.

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 comprehensively covers the return structure (leg prices, spread, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross_*) and explains edge cases. It is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the two modes, the list of topic shortcuts, and that explicit tickers override topic selections. This provides context beyond the raw 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 computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes two modes (topic shortcuts or explicit tickers) and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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 when spreads are meaningful (when bet shapes are equivalent). It also warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning, guiding users to explicit modes. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for different use cases.

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are scoped to the identifier and describes listing behavior when key omitted, which supplements annotations well.

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with action, and every sentence adds 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?

The tool is straightforward with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers usage, scoping, and pairing with siblings, making it complete for an agent to use 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% with description for the key parameter. The description repeats that omitting key lists all saved keys, adding no new semantics 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 retrieves a value saved via remember or lists all keys when omitted. It uses specific verbs (retrieve, list) 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?

The description explains when to use the tool (to look up stored context like ticker, address, notes) and mentions scoping and pairing with remember/forget. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description adds significant detail: parallel fan-out, fallback logic, soft-fail for USPTO, and structure of returned data.

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

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

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, but slightly verbose. Every sentence is informative, though could be slightly trimmed.

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 complexity (multiple APIs, fallbacks, no output schema), description is complete: covers sources, behavior, output shape, and edge cases.

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 value: explains accepted formats for 'since', valid values for 'type', and what 'value' accepts (ticker or CIK).

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 provides a change feed for a company over a recent window, listing specific sources (SEC, GDELT→GNews, USPTO) and distinguishing from sibling tool 'entity_profile'.

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 tells when to use this tool vs 'entity_profile', provides typical usage examples, and explains fallback behavior and parameter conventions.

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 context beyond annotations: explains key-value storage, scoping by identifier, persistence differences between authenticated users (persistent) and anonymous (24-hour TTL). 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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: first states purpose, second gives use case, third adds persistence details. No fluff, well-structured, and front-loaded.

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

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

For a simple key-value memory tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: covers purpose, usage, persistence scope, and pairing with recall/forget.

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 good descriptions and examples. Description adds value by clarifying the types of data to store (findings, addresses, preferences, notes) without being redundant.

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's purpose: saving data for later reuse across sessions. It distinguishes itself from siblings recall and forget by explicitly pairing with them, making its role in the memory set 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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: when discovering something worth carrying forward to avoid re-lookup. Mentions pairing with recall and forget but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns citation URIs and replaces multiple manual lookups, further clarifying behavior 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?

All sentences add value, but the opening example queries could be trimmed without loss. Structure is logical: examples, usage rule, then type details. Efficient overall.

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

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

Given two parameters (both required), no output schema, and clear explanation of return values per type, the description is complete for its purpose. The context signals (annotations, schema coverage) are well-supported.

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

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

Schema descriptions are present, but the description adds significant detail: for company, specifies returns ticker, 10-digit CIK, company_name, and citation URI; for drug, returns RxCUI, ingredient, brand, and citation URI. Also explains auto-disambiguation.

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 opens with concrete user queries and clearly states the tool resolves names to official identifiers. It lists supported types (company, drug) with specific outputs, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like entity_profile.

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 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' Provides examples and notes internal cascading, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions.

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, etc. The description adds value by explaining the internal probing with ai_visibility_check, ranking, and output details (score, confidence, signal density). 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words; efficient and clear.

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 (multiple entities, internal probe, ranking) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, internal behavior, output format, parameter roles, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: entities array has size constraint (2-8) and the first is treated as subject; context disambiguates common names. This enriches parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, with specific actions (probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general comparison) by focusing on AI visibility audits.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: for competitive AI-marketing audits, with a concrete question. It implies not to use it for single entity checks (use ai_visibility_check). While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools, the context helps the agent choose appropriately.

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, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement takes 5-30s, and sources_failed field on timeout. No 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 well structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, covering usage, limits, and error behavior. Could be slightly more concise but still efficient.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions). It covers failure modes, ecosystem scope, and performance considerations, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (scoped packages, version defaults) but does not significantly enhance 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 clearly states it is a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It specifies the verb 'fans out' and distinguishes from other ecosystems by noting NPM-only in v1, thus differentiating from siblings like validate_claim.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also provides exclusion criteria: NPM ecosystem only, and for other ecosystems use deps.dev:version directly.

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, which are all consistent with a read-only, idempotent verification tool. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a verdict (confirmed/refuted/etc.), uses SEC EDGAR and XBRL, and explains that v1 only supports company-financial claims. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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

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

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized for the complexity. It front-loads common trigger phrases, then states the purpose, scope, and return details. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundacy. The format aids readability for an AI agent.

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 only one parameter, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's domain, the data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), the types of returns (verdict, structured form, citation, percent delta), and the scope limitations (v1 only company-financial). No gaps remain for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'claim' parameter. The description goes beyond the schema by providing additional context about the type of claims supported and examples. It also explains the output structure (verdict, actual value, citation). This adds meaning beyond the schema's description.

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 the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides multiple trigger phrases (e.g., 'Is it true that...', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that...') and specifies the domain (company-financial claims). It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, making the purpose very 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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also gives specific examples of triggers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools from the sibling list, though it scopes to company-financial claims for public US companies. Lacks explicit exclusion criteria but overall provides good guidance.

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