lookupResolve an object name → SPK id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Lookup results containing matched objects | |
| signature | No | API signature information |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific transformation (name to ID) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core function with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup, the description is minimally adequate given the presence of annotations and an output schema. However, it lacks usage guidance and fails to mention what happens when the name is not found (e.g., returns null/empty).
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implies that 'query' is an object name via the examples (Mars, ISS), but does not explicitly describe the parameter's purpose or constraints. This provides partial compensation.
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 (resolve) and the mapping from object name to SPK id. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings that perform more complex operations like comparison or entity profiling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_entity, entity_profile, or compare_entities. The description does not mention trade-offs or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate overlapping capabilities (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs bet_research). No two tools appear redundant; even similar prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have specific scopes.
Tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Single-word exceptions (ephemeris, lookup, observers, recall, remember, vectors) are common short verbs and do not break the pattern. No mixing of camelCase or other conventions.
35 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server is a comprehensive data platform covering multiple domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback). The count is justified given the breadth; it feels slightly heavy but not bloated or redundant.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for a data/research platform: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), entity resolution (resolve_entity), lookups (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), comparison (compare_entities), validation (validate_claim), prediction-market operations (polymarket_*), memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and meta/feedback (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending). No obvious gaps for typical workflows.