Ifsc In

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds behavioral details: default model is free, Anthropic calls require BYO key with direct cost. 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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by key details. Every sentence adds 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 no output schema, the description clearly states the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view). It covers all parameters and their behavior, making it self-contained.

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%. The description adds value by explaining the default model for 'models', the cost implication of '_apiKey', and the disambiguation role of 'context', going 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?

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs for brand/product visibility and provides a score. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on per-model scoring and specific models.

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 (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch checks, competitive monitoring) and how to enable Anthropic probes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use cases are well-defined.

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 read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining the tool routes to 4,991 tools across 1,314 sources and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It also notes it 'works on every tier, one fast call,' which is behavioral context not in 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 relatively long (6 sentences) but well-organized with front-loaded key points (preference, scope, usage). Every sentence serves a purpose: scope, usage guidance, examples, differentiation. Could be slightly trimmed but not 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4,991 tools, many domains) and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: return format (structured answer with citation URIs), performance (one fast call), and coverage. It mentions all important aspects for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 6 parameters (including aliases) documented. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it implicitly confirms that the question is in natural language. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: answering factual questions using authoritative structured data. It contrasts with web search and provides specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), making the scope unambiguous. The verb 'routes' and 'returns' with citation URIs adds precision.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and 'START HERE for most questions.' It lists example question patterns and clearly states when to use sibling tools (ask_pipeworx_grounded for verbatim evidence, deep_research for multi-part questions). No ambiguity about when to invoke 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it is a beta, has candidate routing improvements, source-preference ranking, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. 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 detailed and well-structured, front-loading the core identity and then adding important details. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but remains 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, the description explains the response shape by referencing 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx. It also mentions the number of tools (4,991) and the fallback behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool, though a brief note on expected output format would be beneficial.

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 parameters well-described as aliases for 'question'. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond stating 'same arguments', but the schema already handles this adequately. 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with all the same tools and arguments. It explicitly states the experimental improvement (source-preference ranking) and distinguishes it from the stable router.

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: 'when you want the newest routing', and compares it to the stable router. It also instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx, giving clear context and differentiation from 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses the routing process, extraction only from tool result, refusal reason categories, and extra LLM call cost, adding significant behavioral 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 a single dense paragraph that is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and 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 the absence of an output schema, the description fully details the return structure, refusal reasons, and use cases. Sibling comparison and cost hints make 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% and all six parameters are aliases for 'question'. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 clearly states that this tool is a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, distinguishing it from sibling ask_pipeworx by specifying its extra cost and 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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool when answers will be quoted or acted on, and prefers ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, providing clear when-to-use and 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?

Goes far beyond annotations with exhaustive behavioral detail: resolution logic, fan-out, safety checks (low-confidence, closed markets), resolver contract, parent event extraction, news retry fields, and resolution-rule risk—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?

Long but well-organized: starts with core purpose and usage, then details behavior and edge cases. Every section adds value, though some details could be condensed.

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?

Comprehensive coverage for a complex tool with no output schema: explains inputs, process, outputs, edge cases (closed markets, wide spreads), and safety mechanisms, leaving 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 covers all parameters (100%), and description adds meaningful context: market input formats, depth options, include_raw usage recommendations, and fan-out examples that clarify parameter effects.

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?

Describes specific verb ('Research') and resource ('Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data'), with detailed fan-out examples distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and 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?

Explicitly states use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z') and provides varied input examples, though 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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, such as data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and sorting by primary metric. Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint.

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 example queries and clear purpose, but it is slightly verbose with multiple examples. Every sentence adds value, but could be tightened 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 two parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the returned data (financial metrics for companies, adverse events for drugs) and mentions pipeworx:// citation URIs. It could mention data freshness or limitations, but 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?

The input schema already describes parameters well, but the description adds rich meaning: it explains what data each entity type pulls, how format values (tickers vs drug names), and that results are sorted by primary metric. This goes far beyond the schema alone.

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 performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs, using specific verbs like 'compare' and examples like 'X vs Y'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., entity_profile) by noting it replaces 8-15 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?

The description explicitly says to ALWAYS PREFER this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, providing clear context. However, it does not include exclusions or when NOT to use it (e.g., if more detailed data is needed).

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 safety hints; description adds account requirements, depth behaviors, expected return format (findings with evidence, confidence, sources, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri), semantic excerpting, and timing estimates. 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?

Long but well-structured, front-loaded with key points (account requirement, fallback). Every sentence adds value, though some trimming could make it 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, the description covers prerequisites, fallback, usage guidance, detailed behaviors, output format, timing, and edge cases. No output schema exists, but description sufficiently explains return values.

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 significant meaning: details depth options (number of facets, hop behavior, contradictions scan) and clarifies that question should be natural language and multi-part. Adds value 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 performs grounded multi-source research across 1314 structured data sources in one call, distinguishing from siblings like ask_pipeworx and noting it is not open-web search.

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 when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when to use alternatives (single lookup or breaking news use ask_pipeworx). Also covers account requirement and fallback.

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 no destruction. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: returns top-N tools with full schemas and curated examples, ready to call without second lookup. 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?

Two sentences that front-load purpose and usage, followed by return format and guidance. Every sentence is informative with 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 description adequately explains the return format (list of tools with schemas) despite no output schema. For a tool with 6 parameters (mostly aliases) and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently 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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description mentions the query parameter but adds little beyond the schema. 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: finding tools by describing data or task. It lists numerous example domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explicitly contrasts with siblings by advising to call this FIRST when browsing tools.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' It implies when not to use (when you want a single answer), but does not name alternative tools 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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'fans out' across multiple sources, notes the PatentsView API sunset and soft-fail behavior, and describes return structure. 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 dense and informative, front-loaded with examples. While every sentence adds value, it is somewhat lengthy. A slightly tighter structure could improve skimmability, but it remains 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 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: input format, data sources, fallback behavior, and typical return fields. No gaps remain for an AI agent to successfully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description goes beyond by explaining that names are not supported, recommending resolve_entity, and specifying the zero-padded CIK format. For the type parameter, it clarifies that only 'company' is supported now.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It provides concrete examples ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme', etc.) and distinguishes from chaining single-pack lookups, making the purpose unmistakably 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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack...lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' It also instructs to use resolve_entity if only a name is available, and clarifies supported inputs (ticker or CIK). This provides strong when-to-use and 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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'delete' but does not disclose outcomes like what happens if the key doesn't exist or if the operation is reversible. With annotations, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loads the primary action. 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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It could mention success/error behavior, but the simplicity makes this a minor 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% with a clear description for 'key.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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,' which includes a specific verb and resource. It also mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'recall,' distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' Also references alternatives by mentioning 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description adds detail: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown. No contradiction. Missing rate limit or error info, but consistent 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, front-loaded with core purpose, includes use examples. 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?

Given low complexity (2 params, no output schema), description adequately covers inputs and output format. Missing error handling details but expected for simple read 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% so description adds moderate value. Restates parameter purposes and adds default/max for max_links, but doesn't significantly expand 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 verb 'generate', resource 'llms.txt file', and target 'any URL'. Distinguishes from siblings as the only llms.txt generation tool. Use cases listed for clarity.

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 lists three use cases (client site indexing, personal project, competitor auditing), giving clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context 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, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by listing all resolved fields (bank, branch, address, payment rails, format check) and noting keyless access, exceeding 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 four sentences with a clear structure: purpose, output list, source and disclaimer, examples. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers everything: input format, output fields, data source, limitations, and example calls. It is fully self-contained.

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 real-world context: '11-character IFSC code (printed on Indian cheques and bank statements)', examples with case/space tolerance, and format validation info. This meaningfully enhances 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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Indian bank branch lookup by IFSC code') and clearly distinguishes from siblings (no other IFSC tool). It also lists the exact output fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 notes the source (Razorpay IFSC dataset) and a critical limitation: it does NOT verify a bank account or account holder, guiding when not to use it. No alternatives needed due to unique purpose.

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. Description adds that only active subscriptions are returned by default and lists exact fields, complementing 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance.

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 needed information is present: purpose, returned fields, usage context, and parameter behavior. With rich annotations, 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 covers 100% with clear description for include_inactive. Description reinforces the default active behavior, adding value 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 lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates returned fields like id, type, params, created_at. Differentiates from sibling tools subscribe/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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Provides clear context for usage.

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 adds significant value beyond annotations by disclosing rate limits (5 per identifier per day), stating it's free and doesn't count against quota, and noting that feedback affects the roadmap. 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but covers all key points. Minor waste: some detail could be tighter, but overall 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?

For a simple feedback tool with 3 parameters, the description provides comprehensive guidance on usage, behavior, and constraints. No output schema is needed. It is complete for an agent to 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 reinforces the enum types and message content rules but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. The 'context' parameter is not elaborated further.

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 provide feedback about Pipeworx tools, specifically for bugs, features, data gaps, or praise. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only feedback mechanism, and it specifies the actions users can take.

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 scenarios: for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, or praise. It also includes a negative guideline—'don't paste the end-user's prompt'—which helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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 behavior. The description adds valuable context: data source ('CF analytics-engine'), privacy ('no PII'), data structure ('(pack, tool, count)'), and caching ('5min-1h'). 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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence, bulleted use cases, and a brief final note on aggregation. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers functionality, use cases, caching, data source, privacy, and window behavior. No additional info needed.

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 one parameter (window) having enum and description. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining window purpose: 'shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand'. This enhances schema information.

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 returns 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window', with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Pipeworx trending data'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on aggregated trending metrics, a unique function among the listed tools.

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 (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool, aligning use case) and explains window behavior. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the use cases are 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?

The description discloses many behavioral details beyond annotations: the semantic anchor (Jaccard threshold), partition filter (placeholder slugs), fill check against live CLOB depth, and conditions for actionable signals. All align with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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 verbose but well-structured with clear sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK). It front-loads the main purpose and modes. Minor conciseness improvement possible by trimming redundant explanations.

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 of arbitrage detection and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response fields (opportunities, partition_check, fill check) and edge cases (placeholder filtering, low Jaccard similarity). It also references the related tool for custom sizing, making it self-contained.

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 already describes the two optional parameters, but the description adds substantial context: what event slugs look like, that topic is a seed question, and how each mode behaves (walks child markets, searches across platform). This far exceeds the default baseline for 100% 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks'. It specifies three modes (no args, event, topic) and distinguishes itself from related 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 trending scan, event for a specific market's partition check, topic for cross-event scanning. It also advises to use polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, showing awareness of 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 confirm read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds key behavioral details: caching at 1h, slippage subtraction, Kelly caps at 0.25, and diagnostics for empty segments. 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 thorough but verbose, spanning many sentences. While front-loaded with purpose, the detailed model family explanations and technical knobs could be more succinct. Some repetition occurs (e.g., tradeable-edge filters mentioned twice).

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 (9 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics), the tradeable-edge knobs, caching behavior, and limitations (Fed bets). No gaps for a read-only tool with well-documented schema.

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 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining defaults, filters like min_liquidity and min_partition_leg_kelly, and the impact of slippage_pp and max_spread_pp, adding significant domain 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning top Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data diverges from market price. It specifies the intended user query ('what should I bet on today') and distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing three unique model families and tradeable-edge knobs.

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 frames the tool for daily bet discovery and includes a caveat that Fed bets are unreliable without paid data. However, it does not directly compare against sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edge_tracker, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, which the description complements with specific behavioral details: 60-day TTL, snapshot writing conditions, gap interpretation, and that decay is based on daily closes, not intraday. 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 comprehensive and well-organized, with key information front-loaded. While every sentence adds value, the length is slightly above average; however, it earns its keep for 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 lacking an output schema, the description fully details the return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with field meanings. Limitations (TTL, intraday vs. daily) are clearly stated. Complete for a 2-parameter 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 for both parameters. The description adds further clarification: default values, max/clamp for days, and the meaning of window families (24hr, 1wk, 1mo). This enriches 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 uses specific verbs ('answers how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and clearly defines the tool's resource (edge persistence/decay telemetry). It distinguishes from likely siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series analysis rather than current snapshots.

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 on when to use ('to see history and decay'), but does not explicitly name sibling tools or specify when not to use. The contrast between a fresh edge and a 3-week-old edge implies alternative 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral detail: it walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and explains the risk of partial fills causing unhedged positions. 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 with clear sections for single-market and basket modes. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy could be trimmed. The use of capitalization for emphasis (REQUIRES, USE THIS) aids scanning.

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 enumerates all return fields for both modes, explains the risk scenario of partial fills, and provides usage thresholds. For a complex tool with two modes and no output schema, this is comprehensive and leaves no major 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining mode-dependent semantics (e.g., size_usd in basket mode is 'settlement notional — shares per leg, each paying $1 at resolution') and default behavior for side in basket mode. This goes 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?

The description explicitly states the tool performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', clearly distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. It also positions this tool relative to siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills convert arb to directional risk), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral details beyond annotations, including compatibility warnings, temporal alignment checks, skipped cross-type/subtype counters, and the caveat that pre-mapped topics often return warnings.

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 the purpose and then uses capitalized labels (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) to organize information. It is not overly verbose, though some details could be streamlined for a tool of moderate 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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by detailing response fields (leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). It also explains the matching logic and the meaning of skipped cross-type/subtype, making the tool self-contained.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: topic is a shortcut for 10 pre-mapped macros that auto-fetch events, and explicit parameters override the topic-mapped side. This explains the mode logic 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 function as computing cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing cross-venue analysis, which is not covered by single-venue 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 two modes (topic and explicit) and provides context about compatibility warnings and temporal alignment affecting spread validity. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or situations where other tools should be preferred, such as single-venue analysis.

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, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds: omitting key lists all keys, scoping by identifier, and pairing with remember/forget. Adds useful context 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action, each sentence adds value. No waste.

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?

Low complexity tool with one optional parameter, annotations cover safety, description covers usage, scoping, and sibling relationships. Complete for the tool's needs.

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 one parameter. Description adds: omitting key lists all keys, which clarifies behavior beyond the schema. Also explains the key's purpose (lookup 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 verb (retrieve/list) and resource (saved values/keys). It distinguishes from siblings like 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 clear context: use for looking up stored context, scoped to identifier, pairs with remember/forget. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but overall guides usage well.

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 critical behavioral details: the mark_read parameter flags events as read so subsequent calls return newer events, and polling is supported. 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return fields, filtering and mark_read behavior, and alternative access. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 covers return fields, filtering, mark_read, and alternative access. It lacks error handling or pagination details, but for a read tool with full schema annotations, this is adequate.

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 giving examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type, ISO timestamp for since) and explaining the effect of mark_read on future calls, exceeding 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 clearly states the action ('Pull fired events from your subscription feed') and the resource ('alerts'), and specifies return fields. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the 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?

The description provides usage context by mentioning filtering options (type, since), mark_read behavior, and suggesting polling works fine. It also offers an alternative access method (GET endpoint). However, it does not explicitly compare usage to 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?

The description discloses that it fans out to multiple sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO), explains fallback logic (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited), and notes that USPTO soft-fails due to API sunset. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior.

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 common query patterns, then explaining the fan-out, fallbacks, parameters, return format, and alternative tool. While it is relatively long, every sentence contributes valuable information, and the structure makes it easy to scan. A minor improvement could be slightly more brevity, but it remains highly 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly describes the return format: structured changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, and citation URIs. It covers edge cases like soft-fail for patents and fallback from GDELT to GNews. For a complex tool with 3 required parameters, this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value: it specifies valid values for 'type' (only 'company'), explains 'since' formats with examples ('7d', '30d', '3m', '1y', ISO date), and for 'value' accepts tickers or CIK with examples. It also gives usage advice like 'Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring.'

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 it is a change feed for a company in recent time windows, fetching SEC filings, news, and patents. It distinguishes from sibling 'entity_profile' which provides static profiles, 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 provides explicit query patterns (e.g., 'What's new with X', 'latest on Y') and gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'entity_profile' for static profiles. It also details fallback mechanisms between GDELT and GNews.

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 persistence context beyond annotations: scoped by identifier, authenticated users get persistent memory, anonymous sessions 24h. No contradiction with idempotentHint=true.

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?

Efficient single paragraph with front-loaded purpose, every sentence earns its place; slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, covers purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints; could mention return value or overwrite behavior 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?

Schema coverage 100% with clear descriptions; description restates key-value pair but adds no semantic nuance beyond the schema examples.

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 verb 'save' and resource 'data the agent will need to reuse later', and distinguishes from siblings recall 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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward' and pairs with recall and forget for retrieval and deletion.

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=false. The description adds valuable context: each call cascades through several lookups internally, and replaces 2-3 manual steps. 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 a single, well-organized paragraph. It is front-loaded with example queries, uses bullet-style for supported types, 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains return values for each type (ticker, CIK, company name, citation URI for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand for drug). It covers input, logic, and output 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%, but the description enriches both parameters: it explains the 'type' enum and provides concrete examples for 'value' per type (e.g., ticker, CIK, name for company; brand/generic for drug). This goes beyond the schema's terse 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 opens with concrete example queries ('What's the ticker for...'), clearly stating the tool resolves a name to a canonical identifier. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.'

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It lists supported entity types and explains what each returns, implicitly telling the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like entity_profile.

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 tool probes entities with 'ai_visibility_check', requires an '_apiKey' for certain models, and returns a ranked list with 'score, confidence, signal density'. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that.

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, directly stating purpose, usage context, and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter ordering nuance, usage context, and return format highlights. Slightly more detail on output structure (e.g., format of the list) could improve completeness, but it is sufficient for selection and 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% with adequate descriptions. The description adds meaningful nuance: the first entity in the array is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, and the rest as competitors. This goes beyond the schema's generic description of 'entities'.

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 verb ('Compare'), resource ('AI visibility across multiple entities'), and methodology ('Probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score'). It distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by emphasizing multi-entity comparison.

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 frames the tool for 'competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives a concrete example question ('does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?'). It implies when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention specific alternatives like 'compare_entities'.

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 valuable context beyond these: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list it. It also outlines the structure of the response, including summary block, advisories, links, and versions. 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 a single, dense paragraph. It is front-loaded with the composite purpose and each part earns its keep (ecosystem scope, use case, failure behavior, return fields). Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains efficient and informative.

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 return values: summary block fields (is_latest, license, published_at, advisory_count, bundle_kb_min, bundle_kb_gz, dependency_count, has_esm, tree_shakeable), per-advisory detail, links, and recent alternative versions. It also covers edge cases like partial failures and timing. With only two well-documented parameters and clear annotations, the description is complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces that 'package' is an npm package name and 'version' defaults to latest. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 specific verb+resource composite 'should I add this npm package' check and details its scope: license, advisories, version history, bundle size, etc. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'NPM ecosystem only in v1' and pointing to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems.

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 agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also provides a clear exclusion: 'PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly', guiding the agent to 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, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity method (cosine), windowing (500-char overlapping), character cap (200K with truncation flag), and return details (offsets, scores). 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 about 100 words, well-organized with clear sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and action, then provides technical details. No redundant or unnecessary content.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (passages, offsets, similarity scores), embedding model, windowing strategy, and length limits. This covers all necessary context for an agent to use it 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., character limit for text parameter, query examples) but does not significantly enhance understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs semantic search within a fetched record, using verbs like 'search inside' and providing concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding over passages.

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: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains it saves context. Also provides a pairing recommendation with ask_pipeworx_grounded, offering clear guidance on 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 idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, but the description adds critical details: requires OAuth, returns subscription id, delivery channel constraints (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable after failures), and HMAC signing details. 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, especially in delivery details repeated in both main text and param description. However, it is well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by type details and delivery options.

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 3 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: return value (subscription id), authentication requirements, type-specific parameter examples, delivery channel behaviors, and constraints. Could mention error handling or idempotency guarantee, 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters described), but the description adds significant meaning: explains type-specific param formats (e.g., items codes for sec_8k, topic for polymarket_edge), delivery constraints (phone verification, daily cap, webhook signing), and clarifies optional vs required fields.

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 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription' and the resource 'live-data event stream', with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts 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 explicit prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account, phone verification for SMS) and detailed type-specific parameters with examples. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, it offers sufficient context for appropriate usage.

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 context beyond annotations: returns example questions with tool+argument shapes, no arguments gives full spread, topic focuses results. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) align with read-only, exploratory behavior. 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?

Description is somewhat long but front-loaded with user-facing questions and the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise. 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?

Thorough coverage for an onboarding tool with many example categories. Despite no output schema, it adequately describes the return format: category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shape. Contextual completeness is high.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'topic' with a descriptive list of possible values. Description adds minor value with examples and clarifies omission behavior ('cross-category spread'). Baseline 3 with slight improvement.

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 is an onboarding entry point that suggests example questions based on Pipeworx capabilities. It lists numerous natural language queries and specifies that it returns category-bucketed example questions, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit guidance to use this tool FIRST when unsure of Pipeworx capabilities, and provides direction on optional arguments ('topic' parameter) and when to omit them. Also explains how it helps learn to call meta-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 already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: ownership enforcement, deactivation (not deletion), and that historical events remain accessible. 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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the key details are 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?

Given the simple contract (one param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, constraints, and relationships to sibling tools. It enables correct selection and 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% with a clear description for the 'id' param. The tool description does not add further detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 'Cancel a subscription by id.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting ownership enforcement and deactivation vs deletion, which contrasts with 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?

Explicitly states when to use (cancel own subscription) and provides context on behavior (deactivated, not deleted) and alternative tool (recent_alerts for historical events). Ownership restriction is clearly communicated.

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 the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others), the exact math for financial claims, return fields (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), and that it replaces multiple calls, all beyond the 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 yet efficient, starting with trigger phrases, then usage, then internal details, then return format—every sentence is informative and 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?

Despite no output schema, description lists all return fields and covers both primary use cases (financial and non-financial claims), making it complete for the tool's purpose.

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 cover both parameters fully; description adds examples for claim and explains tolerance_pct default behavior and cap, adding value 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 states it performs claim verification using natural-language triggers, clearly distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls.

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 whether something a user said is factually correct' and details the two-path routing for different claim types, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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