ISO Standards

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the default model, the optional API key mechanism, and the return format (per-model scores, confidence, signals, raw_response). This adds significant behavioral context. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, read-only, and idempotent behavior, which the description complements.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states core function, second explains model options, third mentions return format, last gives use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, model options, return format, and use cases. Without an output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent can expect. Minor missing details like 'signals' definition are negligible given the overall completeness.

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?

Although the input schema provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful usage context, such as the default model, the purpose of the API key ('BYO key'), and the disambiguation role of 'context'. This elevates the parameter understanding 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 with a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('LLMs'), and specifies the output ('score visibility 0-100 per model'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on AI visibility scoring for marketing audits, distinct from other research or comparison 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 good context on when to use the tool (e.g., 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and includes guidance on model selection (free default vs. paid Anthropic with API key). It does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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 behavior. The description adds operational details: routes to 3,745 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. 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 and front-loaded with the key recommendation. It efficiently covers usage guidance, domain list, and examples without redundancy. Every sentence is informative.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and examples. It explains the output format (structured answer with citations) adequately for a factual query tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by including three concrete examples of how to use the question parameter, providing context beyond the schema's alias 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 routes questions to authoritative structured data sources with citations, distinguishes itself from web search, and lists specific domains and example queries. It uses a specific verb+resource pattern and differentiates from sibling tools like deep_research and search_within.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and provides context for when to use (factual questions about real-world entities). Includes example query types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, though the list of domains implies exclusions.

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 readOnly and idempotent. The description adds key behavioral details: refusal if data doesn't directly answer (with specific refusal reasons), exact output format, and the extraction process. This goes beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is moderately long but front-loaded with the core concept. Every sentence adds value, though slight condensation could improve conciseness.

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 the tool's behavior, result format, and refusal scenarios. It provides enough context for correct selection and usage given 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% with multiple aliases for the question parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, contrasting it with ask_pipeworx for casual lookups. It specifies that it extracts answers only from tool results, using exact routing and refusal mechanisms.

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 (answers that will be quoted, cited, or acted on) and when to prefer the sibling ask_pipeworx (casual lookups). Also mentions the extra LLM call cost.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description goes well beyond by detailing resolution matching (market_match_confidence, alternatives), fan-out logic, response shapes, safety short-circuits for low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads, and resolution-rule risk. 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 long but well-structured: a concise opening sentence, followed by categorized bullet-style explanations with bolded key terms and examples. Every section adds value. Slightly verbose but appropriately front-loaded for complexity. A 4 indicates good structure with minor room for compression.

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 (many classifiers, fan-out scenarios, response shapes, safety mechanisms, and no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers input, processing, output structure, edge cases (closed markets, illiquid spreads, cancellation rules), and troubleshooting (GDELT 429 fallback). No gaps remain.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining depth options ('quick' = 2-3 sources, 'thorough' = full fan-out) and include_raw behavior (response size trade-offs, ~20KB vs 50-500KB). Examples in schema further help. This extra context justifies a 4.

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

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

The description states 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call', which is a clear verb+resource. It also specifies input types (slug, URL, or question) and output (evidence packet + comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage, which have narrower scopes.

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 use for 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', or 'is there edge in Z', providing clear context. It does not directly contrast with alternatives, but the strong purpose clarity implicitly differentiates it. A 4 reflects good guidance without explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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 as true, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds behavioral details: off-calendar fiscal year handling for companies, data pulled for each type, and that results are sorted by primary metric. This adds value beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and trigger phrases. It is structured with specific details for each type. While slightly long, every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in the trigger phrases list but overall well-organized.

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

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

With no output schema, the description explains the return data comprehensively: paired data, citation URIs, sorted results. It covers both entity types and their specific data fields, and notes that it replaces 8-15 sequential lookups. This is more than sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context: explains that type='company' pulls financial metrics from SEC EDGAR/XBRL and type='drug' pulls FAERS data. It also clarifies that values should be tickers/CIKs or drug names and enforces min/max constraints. This helps an agent use the parameters correctly.

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 defines the tool's purpose as side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs. It uses specific verbs like 'compare' and provides trigger phrases. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly recommending over sequential single-pack lookups.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It also explains the two entity types and their data sources. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for single entity 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tool is a static resolver returning a subset of fields (ISO number, family, summary), which aligns with and extends the behavior implied by 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 describes content and fields, second provides usage direction and relationship to sibling. No redundant information, front-loads key purpose.

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 catalog tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, content, fields returned, and relationship to the sibling tool. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no further context is 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 has one parameter 'query' with description covering the filterable fields. The description mentions filtering on 'number/name/summary/family' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specifically identifies the tool as a 'curated catalogue' of compliance-relevant ISO standards, listing families and fields. Clearly differentiates from sibling 'get_standard' by stating it is a 'static name→number resolver' while 'get_standard' returns the live record.

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 directs users to pass a number to 'get_standard' for the live record, establishing when to use this tool versus the sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative conditions.

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

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

Annotations already mark read-only, idempotent, open-world. Description adds behavioral details: returns verbatim evidence with citations, explicit gaps for unanswered facets (never invented), and a structured findings packet. This complements annotations without contradiction.

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

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

The description is moderately long but every sentence adds essential information. It is front-loaded with the main action. A slight reduction in length could improve conciseness, but current length is justified by 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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent receives: structured findings with citations, confidence, sources, and gaps. It covers prerequisites, timing, and alternatives. No gaps in completeness.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds numerical meanings for depth (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and notes that 'thorough' needs a paid plan, and for question, it clarifies that broad/multi-part is fine. This adds value beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs grounded multi-source research by decomposing questions into sub-questions and routing them in parallel. It distinguishes from sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by noting that tool is for single lookups, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 for broad or multi-part questions with examples, and to use ask_pipeworx for single lookups. Also states requirements (Pipeworx account, paid plan for 'thorough') and expected response time (15-60s), giving clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by specifying the output format ('names, descriptions, and full input schemas with curated examples') and that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: function, usage guidance, return format, and strategic advice. No wasted words.

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

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

The description fully explains what the tool returns (top-N relevant tools with schemas), why it's useful (direct readiness), and when to call it (first). Despite no output schema, the description compensates adequately. All relevant aspects covered.

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 merely reiterates the alias pattern and provides examples that are already in the schema's examples array. It does not add new semantic information 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's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('tools'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_standards' by focusing on tool discovery rather than data search.

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

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

The description explicitly advises: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' It also lists example use cases (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), providing clear context for when to use this tool versus others.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals that it fans out across multiple sources, that USPTO PatentsView API sunsets in May 2025 and soft-fails, and that news uses GDELT→GNews fallback. 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 packs a lot of information into a single paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and usage examples, then details sources and return fields. While every sentence earns its place, a more structured layout (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it's still very effective.

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

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

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: CIK, company name, recent filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI. It also covers limitations (USPTO sunset, names not supported) and fallback mechanisms. Complete for a complex tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds crucial context: explains that 'value' must be a ticker or zero-padded CIK, names not supported, and that type is only 'company' for now. This goes 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 clearly states it generates a cross-source profile of a US public company, listing example queries like 'Tell me about X' and detailing the returned data. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity by stating names are not supported.

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: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' It also warns against using names directly, directing users to resolve_entity first, which is clear and actionable.

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 no new behavioral details beyond the action 'Delete' and the context of 'previously stored memory'. No contradictions.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and tool pairing. Complete for the agent's needs.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add additional semantic meaning 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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a previously stored memory by key'. It explicitly pairs with 'remember' and 'recall' tools, distinguishing it from 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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also suggests pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', offering clear alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool fetches external URLs and extracts content, which is critical behavioral context. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but the basic behavior is well-covered.

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

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

The description is three sentences, each providing useful information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and logically structured. No extraneous words, though it 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the input, process, output, and use cases. It could mention handling of errors or robots.txt, but it's adequate for an AI 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% with both parameters documented. The description adds value by explaining the output format (standard llms.txt ready for site-root) and the purpose of the URL parameter, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it generates a llms.txt file for AI crawlers, listing specific actions (fetch, extract, emit) and the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform the same function.

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 provides use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor). While it doesn't mention when not to use, the use cases are clear and distinct from 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description adds context about the 'best-effort live price' and that it resolves via catalogue ID. This provides useful behavioral insight 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outputs. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague language.

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

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

Given the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description adequately lists all returned fields and indicates reliability. It could mention potential errors or limitations, but overall 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 covers the single parameter with examples (e.g., '27001', 'ISO/IEC 42001'). The description echoes this and adds context about input format, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a full record for a single ISO standard by number or reference, listing specific fields returned (title, abstract, status, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_standards, which would be used for searching.

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 looking up a known standard by number or reference, contrasting with sibling search_standards. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds return field details but no contradictions. Adequate for a safe read operation.

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

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

Two sentences front-load purpose, then returns, then usage. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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

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

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and usage 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%, so description need not elaborate. It mentions 'active subscriptions' implicitly hinting at the boolean parameter, but adds no extra semantics 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 verb 'List', the resource 'subscriptions', and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' 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?

Provides clear use cases: reviewing current subscriptions before adding more or finding an id to cancel. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but effectively covers primary 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 already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the license and which file backs the pack, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant information. 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (URLs), mentions the license and backing file, and is complete for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 4 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 provides URLs for ISO Open Data bulk files, naming specific files (deliverables metadata, ICS classification, technical committees) and a license. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which are unrelated.

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 'Use to ingest the full dataset yourself', providing a clear usage directive. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but given the tool's simplicity, this 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?

Beyond the annotations (which are all false and thus minimal), the description adds key behavioral traits: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, does not count against tool-call quota, and that the team reads digests daily. This informs the agent of constraints and impact.

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 moderately concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidelines, then specifics about feedback categories, then constraints. It is slightly lengthy but all information is relevant and earns its place.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, one nested object, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, parameter usage, and even provides examples of what to include. No gaps are evident.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying how to use the parameters (e.g., 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs') and by explaining the enum values in a way that maps to real use cases. This provides semantic richness 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: to send feedback to the Pipeworx team. It specifies four categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and explains what each category means. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all research, search, or utility tools, none of which are feedback-oriented.

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: when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a desired tool is missing (feature/data_gap), or for praise. It also instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not to paste end-user prompts. This helps the AI select the tool correctly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data source (CF analytics-engine), privacy (no PII), caching (5min-1h), and output composition (pack, tool, count). No contradictions.

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

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

Two well-structured paragraphs. The first immediately states the tool's purpose and output. The second lists use cases and technical details. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, use cases, data source, privacy, and caching. No gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and already explains the 'window' parameter with enum values. The tool description reinforces the use cases for each window size ('shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand'), adding semantic value 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 returns trending information: top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the unique focus on trending data distinguishes it from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'discover_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?

Three explicit use cases are listed: discovering hot data sources, confirming popular tools, and aligning use cases. The description also explains when shorter vs longer windows are appropriate. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, 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?

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds significant behavioral context: algorithmic details (Jaccard similarity, partition filter, fill check against live CLOB depth), failure conditions, and response structure. 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 comprehensive and well-structured with clear sections, but somewhat long. Every sentence adds value, though some algorithmic details could be more concise. Still, it is front-loaded with the requirement 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, multiple checks, fill validation), the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisites, modes, filters, response structure, and trade recommendations. References sibling tool for custom sizing. Adequately explains return values without an output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds rich meaning beyond schema: explains the difference between event and topic modes, provides example slugs and seed questions, and details the behavior for each mode (child markets, ordering checks, cross-event scanning).

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It specifies two modes (event and topic) with examples, distinguishing from sibling tools like 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?

Explicitly requires one of event or topic, warns against calling with no args, and recommends event for specific markets and topic for cross-event scanning. It also explains when not to trade based on fill check results.

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 goes well beyond annotations by detailing internal model logic (e.g., 'partition_overround on mutually-exclusive events' with per-sport α values), caching behavior ('Cached 1h at the KV level'), and response structure (by_segment, _diagnostics).

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

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

The description is lengthy but well-structured with sections (MODEL FAMILIES, RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL, TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS). Every section adds value, though the level of detail may be overwhelming for a first-time user. It earns high marks for clarity over brevity.

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 the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics) and why segments might be empty (e.g., 'top-N stale, all candidates failed gates, knob dropped them'). It also covers Fed betting caveats and caching, making it complete for a complex data-fetching tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds value by grouping knobs into 'TRADEABLE-EDGE' section and explaining their rationale (e.g., 'Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities'). However, it does not introduce new parameter details 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's purpose: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It is built for 'what should I bet on today' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including detailed explanations of the three model families, tradeable-edge knobs (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp, min_kelly), and how to interpret empty segments via _diagnostics. It also notes that Fed bets are excluded from ranking, helping agents avoid unreliable signals.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: it's based on daily snapshots, gaps mean no scan that day, decay computed from daily closes, and response structure details (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates). 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 lengthy but well-structured with sections for RESPONSE and LIMITS. Every sentence adds value; it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient for the amount of detail, though 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must fully explain return values. It does: tracked[] with time-series, trend, decay; expired[] with lifespan; snapshot_dates[]. It also covers limits and gaps. Completeness is excellent given the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about days default 14 and max 30, and window default '1wk', but mostly restates schema. It does not provide deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots. Answers how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes itself from siblings like `polymarket_edges` by focusing on time-series decay rather than current 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 context on when to use the tool: comparing a fresh wide edge to a 3-week-old wide edge. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear. It also mentions limits (60-day TTL, not intraday), guiding appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context: walks the order book ladder, returns verdict and risk warnings. Explains consequences of partial fills, which is beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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

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

Description is informative but somewhat verbose with multi-sentence paragraphs. However, it uses clear structural markers (SINGLE-MARKET: / BASKET:) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes necessary detail.

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 lists all return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, capture_ratio, thin_legs). Covers risks and edge cases comprehensively for a complex tool with two modes.

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%. Description further clarifies parameter behavior in each mode (e.g., side defaults and interpretations, size_usd meaning for single-market vs basket). Adds value beyond schema by explaining mode-dependent 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's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, detailing what each returns. It implies differentiation from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by indicating when to use this tool before those signals.

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.' Explains why with risk details: 'partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position.' No explicit when-not, but the guidance is clear and targeted.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent. Description adds rich behavioral detail: output structure, edge cases (non-equivalent bet shapes, temporal misalignment), and counters for dropped comparisons. 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?

Description is long but well-structured with clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS). Every sentence adds value; slight wordiness in safety field explanations, but justified by 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, description fully details response structure including leg-by-leg prices, spread array, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, and skipped counters. Covers all behavioral nuances for a tool with optional parameters and complex cross-venue 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?

Schema coverage 100%, description adds value by explaining parameter modes and providing examples for topic and explicit tickers. Each parameter's purpose and override behavior is clearly documented.

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

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

Clearly states the tool computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. Distinct verb 'spread' and resource pair, differentiating from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage which focus on single-venue arbitrage.

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

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

Explicitly describes two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and provides safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment) that guide when to trust results. Warns that most pre-mapped topics are not tradeable, setting proper expectations.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which tell the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it retrieves values or lists keys, and that it is scoped, but does not add much beyond what annotations already convey. 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieve', and no wasted words. It is well-structured and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and usage.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, idempotent), the description along with annotations and schema provide complete guidance. No output schema is needed, and the description covers the key behavior adequately.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the 'key' parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitting the key lists all keys, and that the key is a memory key to retrieve. This helps the agent understand the parameter's role.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a previously saved value via 'remember' or lists all keys if the key argument is omitted. It uses specific verbs ('retrieve', 'list') and resources ('value', 'keys'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remember' and 'forget'.

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

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

The description explicitly says when to use the tool ('to look up context the agent stored earlier') and mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'forget'. It also notes the scoping (by identifier). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear and 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?

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that events carry source, citation_uri, and raw payload, and that mark_read flags events as read for subsequent calls. It also confirms polling works fine, supplementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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

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

The description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured, with the main purpose first, followed by details on parameters, behavior, and an alternative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Given 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and thorough annotations, the description covers all aspects: what is returned, filtering options, mark_read behavior, and even an alternative access method. It is fully complete for an AI agent to understand and use the 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances parameter understanding by providing examples ('e.g. 'sec_8k'') and explaining the effect of mark_read ('flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones'). This adds 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and mentions filtering, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools 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?

The description provides specific guidance on when to use the tool, including examples ('Filter by type (e.g. 'sec_8k')') and the mark_read parameter usage. It also mentions an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards, offering a clear context for use.

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, idempotentHint), it discloses internal fan-out to multiple sources, GDELT→GNews fallback, and soft-fail for USPTO. This provides rich context for agent decision-making.

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?

Every sentence adds value; it is well-structured with example queries first, then sources, parameters, return structure, and sibling guidance. No wasted words despite being lengthy.

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 describes return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). It covers all user-facing aspects and alternatives.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining 'since' accepts ISO dates or relative shorthand and gives examples. It also clarifies 'value' can be ticker or CIK.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a change feed for a company over a time window, with example queries like "What's new with X" and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool entity_profile.

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

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

It explicitly tells when to use (e.g., latest updates on a company) and when not to (use entity_profile for static profiles). It also recommends using '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring and describes fallback behavior.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: data is stored as a key-value pair scoped by identifier, with persistence details (persistent for authenticated users, 24 hours for anonymous). This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

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

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

The description is three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: overall function, usage guidance, and behavioral details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains 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?

Given the simple tool (two required params, no output schema), the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how data is scoped, and its pairing with sibling tools. No gaps remain.

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

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

The input schema already describes both parameters (key and value) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, nor does it give format constraints or examples.

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

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

The description uses the verb 'Save' and specifies the resource as 'data the agent will need to reuse later', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'recall' and 'forget', making it evident when to use this tool versus retrieving or deleting.

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 ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and provides concrete examples (ticker, address, preference). It suggests pairing with recall and forget, giving guidance on alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. Description adds that the tool cascades through multiple endpoints, auto-disambiguates, and returns citation URIs—valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences with front-loaded examples and clear structure. Slightly verbose in the first sentence with multiple examples, but efficiently conveys all necessary 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, so description must detail return values—it does so thoroughly for both entity types, including citation URIs and auto-disambiguation. All necessary behavioral and output details are present.

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 meaning by specifying acceptable input formats for each type (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand or generic for drug) and detailing return fields including citation URIs.

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 user-spoken names to canonical identifiers, with concrete examples like 'What's the ticker for…' and detailed type information. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on name-to-ID resolution.

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

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

Explicitly advises 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' While no when-not-to guidance is given, the context clearly positions it as the primary tool for identifier lookup.

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 probing each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranking by score, and returning score/confidence/signal density. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., so description adds value beyond that. 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 with no superfluous words. Front-loaded with core purpose, then detail, then use case. 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?

With no output schema, description adequately explains return value (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). Could add more structure but sufficient for agent to understand output.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds key context: first entity is treated as 'subject' for narrative, rest are competitors; context disambiguates common names; models can be omitted for default workers-ai.

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

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

Clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, ranks them, and surfaces most/least recognized. Distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check which is for single entity checks.

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 useful for competitive AI-marketing audits with a concrete example question. Provides context for when to use but does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives beyond implied comparison with ai_visibility_check.

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 note readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds detail about external fan-out, graceful degradation with sources_failed, and timing of bundlephobia measurement.

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?

Detailed but front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose for a 2-param tool.

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 return fields, partial failures, ecosystem limitation, and timing behavior. No output schema present, but description fully compensates.

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 adds context for scoped packages and version defaults, reinforcing schema descriptions without adding new constraints.

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's a composite check for npm packages combining deps.dev and bundlephobia. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying scope (NPM only) and behavior.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Mentions ecosystem limitation and partial failure handling.

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 value by specifying search scope and returned fields, enhancing transparency 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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and including essential details without waste. 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 no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned and mentions optional filters. It is complete for a search tool, though could note pagination (limit is described in schema).

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall search behavior and example usage but does not elaborate on individual parameters 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 searches the full ISO catalogue by keyword across reference, title, and abstract, with optional filters. It specifies returned fields and provides example usage ('supply chain security'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_standard.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use to find standards on a topic' with examples, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives, though sibling tools are evident.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description details embedding model (BGE-base-en), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), character offset output for verification, and a 200K char cap with truncation flagging. This adds rich behavioral context.

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

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

The description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then technical details. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (top-N passages with offsets and scores), the underlying algorithm, and truncation behavior. This is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing natural-language query examples and clarifying the 'text' parameter as 'the document text to search inside,' which slightly deepens understanding beyond the schema's brief 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 it performs 'semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and gives concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article, long tool result). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, making its unique role obvious.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains the benefit of saving context. It hints at alternatives by pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative 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?

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: requires Pipeworx OAuth account, SMS cap (10/day), phone verification at /account, webhook auto-disable after 10 failures. 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?

Efficiently packs purpose, type examples, delivery options, and constraints into a few sentences. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly dense but appropriate for the 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?

Covers return value, prerequisites, types, delivery channels, and constraints. Lacks details on error handling or subscription lifecycle, but adequate for a creation tool. No output schema, so description compensates well.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds meaning with examples for each type (e.g., items:['5.02'] for sec_8k), explains SMS constraints, and webhook signing details. Adds significant value beyond schema.

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

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

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id.' Distinguishes from siblings like unsubscribe 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?

Provides context on when to use (proactive monitoring) and supported types with examples. Implicitly contrasts with pull-based recent_alerts. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns example questions with tool names and argument shapes, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is concise (~100 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently conveys all necessary information without waste, though a slightly more structured presentation could improve readability.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description fully explains the return format (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shape) and use case. It is complete and leaves no gaps.

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

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

Schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a description. The description adds value by providing example topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and explaining the behavior when omitted, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as an onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions. It uses specific verbs like 'Returns' and 'Use this FIRST', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and entity_profile.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you', providing clear usage context. It also explains how to focus with a topic parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternative tools for specific 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?

Adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the operation is a soft deactivation rather than deletion, and mentions historical events remain available. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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

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

For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: ownership, effect, and persistence of historical data.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'id'. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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

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

Description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by indicating the action is cancellation.

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

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

Provides clear context: ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior (not deletion). Implicitly tells when to use (own subscriptions) but doesn't explicitly state when not to or provide alternative tools.

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

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

The description reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the tool uses SEC EDGAR + XBRL, returns a verdict with structured form, actual value, citation, and percent delta. Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior, and the description adds valuable context without contradiction.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured: it starts with trigger phrases, states its primary use, scopes its domain, and lists benefits. Every sentence adds value, and no redundant information is present.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully documents return values (verdict types, citation, delta) and the data source. This provides complete contextual information for an agent to decide when and how to use the 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes the claim parameter. The description adds significant value by providing examples of valid claims and explaining the natural-language nature, which helps the agent format input correctly.

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: verifying natural-language factual claims, specifically company-financial claims. It provides trigger phrases ('Is it true that...', 'fact check', etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also scopes the domain (company-financial claims for public US companies). While it doesn't list specific siblings as alternatives, the context implies this is the primary claim verification tool.

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