Inaturalist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the scoring range (0-100), return structure (per-model with score, confidence, signals, raw_response, plus combined view), and cost implications (BYO Anthropic key). 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-structured paragraph. Every sentence adds value: first states the core purpose, then covers defaults and optional behavior, and ends with use cases. No 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 complexity (4 parameters, multiple models, no output schema), the description adequately covers return structure, cost, and key required vs optional details. It lacks information on error handling or rate limits, but these are minor omissions.

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%. The description enriches each parameter: explains the default model for 'models', the purpose of '_apiKey' with cost note, and the disambiguation role of 'context'. It adds value beyond the schema definitions.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'probe' and the resource 'LLMs', and specifies the output (visibility score 0-100 per model). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on AI visibility scoring, which is unique 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 provides clear usage contexts (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains the default model and optional Anthropic key. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it routes to 4,552 tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and examples without redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains routing, source coverage, and citation format. A slight gap is the absence of explicit return structure, but the mention of 'structured answer with citation URIs' suffices.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with all parameters (including aliases) documented. The description adds example questions and notes that the parameter accepts natural language, but does not provide new semantics 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: it routes factual questions to a vast collection of verified sources and returns structured answers with citations. It explicitly distinguishes itself from web search and sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, providing a clear verb and resource.

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 this tool (prefer over web search, start here for most questions) and when not to (step up to grounded for verbatim evidence or deep research for broad queries). It also gives concrete examples of appropriate questions.

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 behavioral context: it costs one extra LLM call, returns explicit refusal reasons (like 'not_in_source'), and extracts answers only from the tool result. This adds value without contradicting annotations.

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

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

The description is somewhat lengthy (two paragraphs) but front-loads key information (purpose, behavior, return format). It is well-structured with clear sections, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (high-stakes, refusal reasons, multiple return structures), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and the full response format (including refusal reasons). No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return structure. The input schema fully covers parameters.

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

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

The input schema has 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description mentions that the tool uses the same routing as ask_pipeworx and picks from 4,552 tools, but it does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and specifies it extracts answers solely from tool results, returning a structured response with evidence. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by noting it costs an extra LLM call and is for quoted/cited/acted-on answers.

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 tells when to use this tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when to prefer the sibling ask_pipeworx ('for casual lookups'). It also lists concrete use cases like financial verdicts, legal claims, and medical lookups.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=true, idempotent=true. The description adds extensive behavioral context: resolution process, fan-out, response shapes, safety short-circuits, closed/dead market handling, spread warnings, and cancellation rule risk. 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 verbose but front-loaded with purpose and usage. It includes detailed classifiers, fan-out examples, and edge cases; while valuable, some sections could be streamlined. Still, every sentence earns its place given complexity.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains every response component: market, analysis, evidence, resolver contract, parent event, news fields, safety, spread, cancellation rule. It covers edge cases and blocking paths, leaving 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% with detailed descriptions. The description adds meaning: e.g., for 'include_raw' it explains response size trade-offs ('keeps responses under ~20KB' vs '50KB-500KB'), and for 'depth' it clarifies fan-out extent.

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 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' and 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on single-bet research.

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

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

The description provides clear usage cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but implies context through fan-out examples.

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?

Describes data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), off-calendar handling, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. Adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) 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?

Well-structured, front-loaded with examples and core action, then details per type. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

Covers entity types, data fields, limits, sorting, and return format (paired data + URIs). No output schema needed; description is self-sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%; description adds example values and clarifies formatting (tickers/CIKs, drug names), enhancing understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool does side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one call, with example queries and data sources. It distinguishes from sequential lookups, providing a specific verb+resource.

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 sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', giving a strong directive on when to use this tool over alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds rich behavioral context: decomposes questions into facets, routes to 4,552 tools in parallel, returns findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable citations, and explicit gaps[]. Also discloses expected response time (15-60s) and account tiers.

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

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

The description is long but every sentence adds critical information—account requirements, alternatives, internal mechanics, output format, and limitations. Front-loaded with the most important constraint (account needed). Slightly verbose but justified given the tool's complexity.

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

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

Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, internal process, output structure, edge cases (gaps[]), and constraints. No missing information for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and clarifying that the question parameter accepts broad/multi-part queries, which is not evident from 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 'grounded multi-source research' across structured data sources, explicitly distinguishing it from open-web search and sibling tools like ask_pipeworx. It specifies the verb (research) and resource (structured data sources) with concrete examples.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when-not-to-use (breaking news, casual current topics), with direct alternative (ask_pipeworx). Also notes account requirements and plan limitations for depth levels.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as returning top-N tools with full schemas and curated examples, ready to call directly without a second lookup. 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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: definition, usage context with examples, description of output, and a directive. No unnecessary words.

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

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

The description covers the main functionality, input aliases, and output summary. While it doesn't detail the exact return JSON structure, it adequately describes what is returned (names, descriptions, schemas with examples). Given the tool's discovery role and the lack of an output schema, this is sufficient.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description further clarifies that multiple aliases (q, task, search, description) are accepted for the main 'query' parameter, and provides natural language examples. This adds significant meaning 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's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies the verb (find/discover) and the resource (tools), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing discovery of tool options rather than specific data queries.

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 usage guidance: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It also lists example tasks and domains, giving clear context for when to use the tool. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the directive implies alternatives.

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

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

Description reveals parallel execution, specific data sources (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), return structure (cik, company_name, filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents soft-failing, news fallback), going well beyond annotations which only indicate read-only 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?

Well-structured with examples at the start, important instruction highlighted, followed by detailed output description. Slightly verbose in enumerating all sources, but each part 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 fully explains return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and includes important edge-case info (patents sunset, news fallback). Comprehensive for a profile 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 both parameters described. Description reiterates schema info with minor addition (names not supported). Does not add significant new meaning beyond what schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company' with specific verb 'profile'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deep_research and compare_entities by focusing on a holistic company overview in one parallel call.

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

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

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups' and specifies input requirements: ticker or CIK, not names, with an alternative tool (resolve_entity) mentioned for name resolution.

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 destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about scenarios (stale data, clearing sensitive data) but does not reveal additional behavior beyond what is in 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, no redundancy, directly to the point. Front-loaded with 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?

Simple tool with one parameter. Description and annotations are sufficient for usage, but lack of output schema means no information about return value (e.g., success indicator), which is 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 covers 100% of parameters and describes 'key' as 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add further detail about the parameter, so it meets the baseline for complete 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a previously stored memory by key'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall'.

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 provides when to use the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also suggests pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', indicating alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. This enriches the agent's understanding 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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The use-case list is efficient and clearly structured.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers what the tool does, its output format, and typical use cases. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (url and max_links) documented. The description does not add new information about parameters; it only restates the purpose of the output. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 generates an llms.txt file for any URL, specifies the exact output format, and lists retrieval and extraction steps. It is a specific verb+resource that is unique among siblings.

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

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

The description includes explicit use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors), but does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools. Since no sibling tool offers similar functionality, this is adequate.

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, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields and the default behavior (active only), and mentioning the caller-specific scope, which is beyond the annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is two sentences: first stating purpose and return fields, second providing usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no extraneous information.

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

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

For a simple list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description lists the return fields and provides usage context. It could mention potential pagination or limit, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 100% description coverage with one parameter. The description adds meaningful context by stating 'caller's active subscriptions', which clarifies the default behavior and scope not present in the schema description. This adds value beyond the baseline 3.

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

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

The description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions', identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by focusing on listing existing 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?

The description explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context, though it does not include explicit when-not scenarios.

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

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

Annotations are minimal (all false). The description adds behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and that feedback affects roadmap. It also clarifies that it doesn't count against tool-call quota. This goes beyond annotations, but doesn't detail side effects like whether a response is returned.

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured: starts with purpose, then usage conditions, then specific instructions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 has no output schema and 3 parameters (including nested object), the description covers purpose, when to use, formatting, and constraints. It could mention the expected response (e.g., confirmation), but overall it's sufficiently 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% (all parameters described). The description adds significant value: explains each enum value for 'type', gives formatting guidance for 'message', and advises on how to use 'context'. This goes well beyond the schema's descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: sending feedback to Pipeworx about bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research by being explicitly for feedback, not for querying or research.

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

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and specific instructions (describe issue in terms of tools/packs, don't paste end-user prompt). It also mentions rate limits and quota. However, it does not directly contrast with alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, and caching behavior (5min-1h). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

The description is concise (about 4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. The numbered use cases improve scannability. It could be slightly tighter, but it's efficient and clear.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers everything needed: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral notes, parameter meaning, and return structure (top tools, packs, call volume). 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?

The single parameter 'window' has 100% schema coverage with enum and description. The description adds interpretive meaning: 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This enriches the schema definition.

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

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

The description starts with a clear verb ('Returns') and specific resource ('top tools, top packs, and total call volume'). It explicitly lists three use cases that differentiate this tool from siblings like 'top_species' or 'discover_tools', making its purpose distinct and actionable.

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 three explicit use cases (discovering hot data, confirming canonical tool, seeing alignment) which guide when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the use cases imply 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, including internal monotonicity checks, partition sum computations, semantic similarity filtering, placeholder filtering, and fill check integration. 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 verbose and dense, containing many details that could be streamlined. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear section headers (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) to organize information. Adequate but not highly concise.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, internal algorithms, edge-case handling) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides thorough coverage: it explains input formats, response fields, fallback behaviors, and even references another tool for custom sizing. No significant gaps remain.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial value: it explains that event accepts slugs or full URLs, defines the behavior of each mode, and details special constraints like the trending_scan default when no args are passed. This goes well beyond the schema definitions.

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

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

The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by focusing specifically on arbitrage detection through multiple methods.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use each argument: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan.' It also recommends event mode for specific markets, warns when not to trade based on fill checks, and directs to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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 is extremely transparent about the tool's behavior, detailing five model families, edge calculations (e.g., edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction), response segments, diagnostics, caching policy, and tradeable-edge knobs. It adds significant context beyond the read-only, idempotent 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 very long and dense, covering many technical details that could be streamlined. While it is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, it contains excessive information about model families that might be better placed in a separate reference.

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 (9 parameters, multiple segments, diagnostics), the description is comprehensive. It explains the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics) despite lacking an output schema, and covers edge cases like empty segments and filtering skips.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by providing context for parameters like min_partition_leg_kelly (explaining why min_kelly doesn't work for partitions) and defaults for several parameters. It enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It explicitly says it's built for 'what should I bet on today' and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on edge detection across multiple model families.

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 (discovering opportunities) and provides detailed context about model families, knobs, and diagnostics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives among sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or bet_research.

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about data sources (daily snapshots), gaps (cache-miss days), limitations (60-day TTL, start date), and decay computation (daily close, not intraday). 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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core question. While it contains valuable information, it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points for response fields) to improve readability. However, every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with field details (e.g., trend, decay rates, lifespan). It also covers limitations and edge cases (gaps, TTL), making it complete for agent usage.

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 3 applies. Description reinforces defaults and limits (days: 14, max 30; window: default '1wk') but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter behavior or constraints in detail.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and whether it is shrinking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on temporal analysis, which is implicit but effective.

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

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

The description provides context on when to use the tool, e.g., 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades,' and includes limitation details (60-day TTL, gaps). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like polymarket_edges or specify when not to use it, slightly reducing clarity.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: walks order-book ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and explains basket-mode caveats like thin_legs and forced directional 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?

Description is somewhat long but front-loaded with core action, uses bold for mode labels and critical warnings. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Though output schema is missing, description enumerates all return fields for both modes and explains integration with sibling tools. Covers edge cases like partial fills and unhedged positions.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds context: explains 'size_usd' in basket mode as settlement notional, clarifies 'side' defaults per mode, and mentions default and clamp values.

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 checks realizable vs theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth, with two explicit modes (single-market and basket). It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying its pre-trade risk-assessment role.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Also warns against using it for partial fills that create unhedged directional positions.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description adds substantial behavioral details: compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross_type/subtype, and explains when spreads are meaningless. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with sections for modes, response, and safety fields, and front-loads the main purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose with repeated details, which could be tightened.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, safety fields). It covers edge cases like compatibility warnings and temporal alignment, making it complete for a tool with complex logic.

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

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

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the two modes and providing examples, going beyond the schema's property 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 computes 'cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question,' specifies two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers), and explains the output structure. This distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (comparing prices across venues) and includes caveats about pre-mapped topics often returning compatibility warnings. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context from sibling list implies differentiation.

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 readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, description discloses scoping (by identifier: IP, key hash, account ID) and the dual behavior (value vs list all). 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action, no filler. Could possibly merge first two sentences, but still efficient and 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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter, description covers purpose, usage, scope, and dual output behavior. No output schema needed as description explains return types.

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 key parameter with description. Description adds essential detail: omitting key lists all saved keys. No other parameters to document.

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 explicitly states verb (retrieve/list) and resource (saved values via remember). Distinguishes from siblings (remember, forget) by naming them and explaining the retrieval role.

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

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

States clear use case: looking up previously stored context like tickers or notes, avoiding re-derivation. Mentions pairing with remember and forget, implying when to use alternatives. No explicit when-not-to, 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by explaining mark_read flag sets events as read for subsequent calls, and describes payload contents. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words, and covers key aspects in a few lines.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return structure and main features. Lacks mention of default ordering (likely most recent first) and pagination details, but is sufficient for typical usage.

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. Description adds context by giving an example filter type (sec_8k) and explaining mark_read and unread_only usage. This provides additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

Description clearly states it pulls fired events from subscription feed, specifies returned fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), and mentions filtering options. The name 'recent_alerts' is self-descriptive and distinguishes from siblings like '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?

Provides context on when to poll, filtering by type and ISO timestamp, and explains mark_read and unread_only behavior. Also mentions alternative access via a direct URL, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant context: fans out to SEC, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO soft-fail, and return structure (changes[] grouped by source with citation URIs). 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 dense paragraph but front-loaded with example queries and all critical details. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve scanability. Still, 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains return format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, pipeworx:// URIs). It covers fallbacks, rate limits, and an alternative tool, making it fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining that 'since' accepts relative shorthand like '7d', '30d', '3m', '1y', and that 'value' can be ticker or zero-padded CIK. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 defines the tool as a change feed for a company over a recent window, with example queries like 'What's new with X'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile' by stating when to use the latter for static profiles.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'. Also details fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews, notes the PatentsView API sunset, and gives recommendations for the 'since' parameter ('Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring').

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 provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about persistence: authenticated users get persistent memory, anonymous 24-hour retention. 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?

5 sentences, front-loaded with main action, no fluff. Well-organized for quick parsing.

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

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

No output schema needed for simple store operation. Description covers persistence, scope, and pairing with related tools. Sufficient for correct 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 100% with examples. Description reiterates key-value purpose but doesn't add significant new information beyond schema.

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

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

Description clearly states verb 'save', resource 'data 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 tells when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. Also mentions alternatives: 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.'

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 that each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally, which is useful behavioral context not captured in 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 starts with concrete examples, then states the purpose, then details supported types. It is well-structured but slightly lengthy; could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity. Front-loading is good.

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 two entity types and no output schema, the description fully explains what each call returns (fields, citation URIs). It covers input variations, auto-disambiguation, and internal cascading. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant detail: for each type, it explains the return fields (ticker, CIK, company name with citation for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand with citation for drug) and mentions auto-disambiguation for company input.

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 resolves a name to a canonical identifier, with specific examples and supported types (company, drug). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that other tools require IDs, and lists the exact outputs (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, etc.).

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 says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' setting clear context. It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the scope is well-defined. It mentions that using this tool replaces 2-3 manual lookups, implying efficiency.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. 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 two sentences plus a usage example, all front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence is purposeful 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 having no output schema, the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity) and the process (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check). With high parameter coverage and clear behavioral annotation, the description is fully adequate for the tool's moderate complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' and others as competitors, and that context disambiguates common names, which is not in 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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. It specifically mentions probing each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranking by score, and surfacing most/least recognized, distinguishing it from the single-entity sibling tool.

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 usage for competitive AI-marketing audits with an example question. While it doesn't list when not to use it or alternative tools, the context makes it clear this is for multi-entity comparisons, and the sibling ai_visibility_check is implied for single 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. Description adds valuable context: fans out to deps.dev and bundlephobia, partial failure handling (sources_failed lists timeouts), and return structure with specific fields.

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

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

Single dense paragraph, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly improved with bullet points for readability, but the information is efficiently conveyed without unnecessary words.

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

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

Covers all aspects an agent needs: purpose, when to use, ecosystem limitation, partial failure behavior, return value details (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives). No output schema, so description compensates fully.

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% coverage; description reiterates that 'package' accepts scoped packages and 'version' defaults to latest. No additional details beyond schema that significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a composite check for adding an npm package, covering license, advisories, version history, bundle size, etc. It specifies the ecosystem (npm only) and distinguishes from potential similar tools by mentioning alternatives 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 specifies ecosystem limitation (NPM only in v1) and directs users to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns photographed sightings with coordinates, dates, and observer info—matching and enriching the behavioral context. No contradictions.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value: filters, return types, and a cross-validation tip. 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 6 optional parameters, a rich output schema (not shown but implied), and comprehensive annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and typical usage. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or default sorting, but fully adequate for the complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides concrete examples (e.g., 'Pandion haliaetus', 'California') and mentions auto-resolution for place, adding meaning beyond the schema's own 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 states the verb 'search', the resource 'citizen-science observations on iNaturalist', and specifies filters (taxon, place, year, threatened, quality). This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_taxa by naming the data source and output.

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

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

The description implies usage for iNaturalist observations and suggests cross-validation with GBIF, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by listing return fields but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, and the key purpose and output are stated upfront.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is adequate. It could mention the source (iNaturalist) but overall is complete for a search tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant new meaning beyond what is already in 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 tool searches iNaturalist taxa by name, returns specific fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_observations and top_species by focusing on taxa.

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

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

The description advises using the taxon ID for downstream filters, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools, leaving some implicit guidance.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses important behavioral details: uses BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag, and that passages include offsets for verification.

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 a single dense paragraph with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, technical details, and limitations efficiently.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (semantic search, chunking, thresholds), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, technical implementation, limits, and integration with a sibling tool. No gaps for an agent.

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 providing examples for the query parameter, specifying the default limit (5) and range (1-20), and confirming the text max length (~200K chars), which supplements 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 performs 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with a specific verb and resource. It provides examples (SEC 10-K, article) and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning its pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' Also provides an alternative workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages.'

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

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

Adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: returns new ID, requires OAuth account, delivery caps (10/day SMS), webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, and HMAC signing. These traits are absent from 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?

Well-structured with core purpose first, then prerequisites, type examples, and delivery details. Slightly long but every sentence adds value.

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

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

Covers all 5 subscription types and 3 delivery channels, includes output (subscription ID), and addresses edge cases (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable). No output schema exists, so description fills that gap 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter meaning with concrete examples (e.g., 'items:["5.02"] = officer change') and explains constraints like 'sponsor or condition required' for clinical_trial, adding high value.

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 creates a 'proactive monitoring subscription' and returns a subscription ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_subscriptions' and 'unsubscribe'.

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

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

Describes prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account) and provides examples per type, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'unsubscribe'.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the return format (category-bucketed examples with tool shapes) and that results are drawn from a live catalog, which implies dynamic, non-static 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 front-loaded with common user queries, making the purpose immediately clear. It is slightly long but well-organized with no wasted sentences.

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 onboarding tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description fully explains return format, usage, and context. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter fully described. The description echoes the parameter's purpose (topic for focus) and adds example values, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as an onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions. It provides synonyms and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by explaining it shows example questions with tool shapes.

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 recommends using this tool FIRST when the agent doesn't know what Pipeworx can do, and explains how to call it with or without arguments. It doesn't directly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

Description discloses key behaviors (auto-resolve place name, returns ranked species with counts and taxonomy) beyond what annotations provide. 'Date range' wording slightly overstates capability (only year parameter available), but no contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, first sentence packs purpose and key behavior, second sentence provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, well 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 existence of an output schema and full coverage of input parameters, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. Examples and usage hint complete the picture.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining that 'place' can be a name (auto-resolved to ID) and providing example usage. This clarifies parameter semantics beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool returns most-frequently-observed species in a place, with auto-resolution of place names and ranked results. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_observations or search_taxa by focusing on summary top species.

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 it's great for 'what wildlife lives here?' questions, providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the 40+ 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?

Discloses ownership enforcement and deactivation beyond annotations. Aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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

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

Two sentences, main action first, then important details. 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?

Comprehensive for a simple tool: describes what action, ownership, and outcome. No output schema 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 covers 'id' fully. Description adds context by explaining the effect of cancellation. Slightly above baseline due to added usage 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?

Clearly states 'cancel a subscription by id'. Ownership enforcement and deactivation semantics distinguish it from '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?

Implicitly tells when to use (cancel own subscription) and when not (cannot cancel others). Provides context about deactivation for historical data. Could explicitly reference alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds beyond: details return verdicts, sources used, and that it replaces multiple sequential calls. 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?

Two sentences with example phrasings front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly long but still clear and packed with useful information.

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

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

No output schema, but description explains return values (verdicts, structured form, citation, delta). For a simple tool with one parameter and rich annotations, this is 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% for the single 'claim' parameter. Description adds examples and clarifies natural-language format, providing value beyond schema even though baseline is 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples and scope (company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL). It distinguishes from siblings by being a specialized verification tool.

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

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

Explicitly says to use when checking factual correctness, and notes limitations (v1 company-financial claims). Could explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., non-financial claims), but domain guidance is clear.

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