list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the exact returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), which is especially helpful since no output schema is provided. It also clarifies scope ('active subscriptions'), which aligns with the include_inactive parameter.
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-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence earns its place. It states the purpose, the return fields, and a practical usage hint without repetition 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. Since no output schema exists, explaining the returned fields in the description is essential and well handled.
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 schema has full coverage for the single optional parameter include_inactive, with a clear description in the schema itself. The tool description adds no explicit parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'active subscriptions', which indirectly relates to the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'List', and names the resource, 'the caller's active subscriptions'. It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, which perform different actions.
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 the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This implies alternatives (subscribe, unsubscribe) but does not explicitly name them or state when not to use. It gives practical usage guidance without explicit exclusion, so a 4 is appropriate.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing core, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market edge detection. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read a lot of nuance to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the convention is mixed: verb_noun names like encode_html and resolve_entity sit alongside bare verbs like remember and forget, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and polymarket_fill_risk. The ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* families are internally consistent, but there is no single predictable pattern across the whole set.
At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy set. The bloat is especially noticeable because the server is named Htmlentities yet only encode_html and decode_html relate to that purpose; the rest are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities.
The Pipeworx surface is broadly complete: ask/grounded/deep_research/discover/suggest cover data access, entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/validate_claim cover entity workflows, and subscriptions and memory have create/list/delete lifecycles. Minor gaps such as no update operation for subscriptions or memories are workable, and encode/decode fully covers the literal Htmlentities purpose.