Jsonplaceholder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. Description adds critical behavioral details: default model, cost implications of Anthropic key, and exact return structure (per-model and combined view). 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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Perfectly sized for quick understanding.

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?

Complete for a non-nested, 4-param tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, all parameters' usage, return structure, and use cases. No missing details.

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

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

Schema already describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value beyond schema by explaining default model selection, API key pass-through as cost bearer, and context disambiguation role. Just short of perfect because it could explicitly list possible model values.

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

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

Clearly states the tool probes LLMs for entity knowledge and scores visibility (0-100). Verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs' are specific. Differentiates from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on general visibility scoring rather than just competitors.

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 use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. Also explains when to provide _apiKey for Anthropic vs using free default. Provides clear context for choosing this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent. Description adds that it routes to 3,745 tools and returns structured answers with citation URIs, providing useful 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?

Description is well-organized with examples and front-loaded preference statement. Slightly verbose but 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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (structured answers with citation URIs) and covers usage scenarios. Complete enough for the complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description explains that 'question' accepts aliases (q, query, etc.), adding marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states it answers questions about current/historical data from many sources (SEC, FDA, etc.) and gives examples. It distinguishes itself from web search and sibling tools like deep_research.

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

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

Explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and provides specific use cases and example queries, guiding the agent when to use this tool versus 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds significant context: the extra LLM call, explicit refusal categories (not_in_source, no_tool_match, etc.), and the return structure with evidence and confidence. 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 moderately lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then mechanism, then usage guidance. Each sentence contributes value. Could be slightly more concise but overall effective.

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

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

Given the complexity of the tool (high-stakes reads, refusal handling) and no output schema, the description fully covers return format, refusal reasons, and cost implications. It is sufficient for an agent to understand behavior and trade-offs.

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 each alias. Description simply restates that these are aliases and that the question is in natural language. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains it extracts answers only from tool results. It contrasts with sibling ask_pipeworx, specifying that it costs an extra LLM call and returns explicit refusal reasons.

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: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts.' Also provides alternative: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' This gives clear guidance on selection.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds extensive behavioral details: resolver contract (confidence levels, alternative matches), parent event extraction, news fields with error handling, safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuit, closed market detection), spread warnings, 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 very long (multiple paragraphs) and contains extensive detail. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, and organized into sections, but its verbosity may hinder quick parsing by an AI agent. A more concise version could retain key 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?

The description covers all critical aspects: input types, fan-out logic per classifier, response shape (market, analysis, evidence), resolver contract, parent event extraction, news field fallback, safety mechanisms, spread handling, and resolution-rule risk. Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides complete guidance.

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 good descriptions. The tool description adds significant context beyond the schema, such as explaining the difference between 'quick' and 'thorough' depth, and the purpose of include_raw. This enhances understanding of parameter behavior.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data in one call, and specifies input types (slug, URL, question text). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage, leaving some ambiguity.

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 use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y') and includes examples of fan-out for different bet types. It does not specify when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, but the context is strong.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it pulls latest 10-K data for companies, handles off-calendar fiscal years correctly, retrieves FAERS/FDA data for drugs, sorts by primary metric, and returns paired data with citation URIs. This goes well 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 detailed but concise, using examples and clear statements. It front-loads trigger phrases and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value, explaining functionality, data sources, and behavioral notes without waste.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity' and that results are sorted by primary metric. However, it doesn't specify the exact fields returned (e.g., revenue, net income for companies). While sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output, slightly more detail would improve 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 covers 100% of parameters (type and values). The description adds meaning: it explains the 'type' enum values (company vs drug) with detailed data sources, and for 'values' provides examples (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names) and constraints (2-5 items). This enriches the schema information.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single call. It uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'rank these companies') and resources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like entity_profile which handle single entities.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. Examples like 'which is bigger/better' further clarify appropriate contexts. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the guidance is strong 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. The description adds significant detail: never invents (gaps[] for unanswered), returns pre-verified findings with citations, expects 15-60s latency, requires account and paid plan for certain depth. 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?

Well-structured with front-loaded key capability and clear sections. While detailed, each sentence adds value; length is justified given tool 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?

Describes purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameters, limitations, and expected return (findings packet with citations and gaps). No output schema, but the description sufficiently explains what the agent receives.

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 for 2 parameters. Description adds meaning by explaining depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and that question can be natural language broad/multi-part, going beyond schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs grounded multi-source research in one call, decomposing questions into sub-questions and routing to many tools in parallel. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by specifying that it handles broad or multi-part questions, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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

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

Explicitly advises using for broad or multi-part questions and contrasts with ask_pipeworx for single lookups. It also notes prerequisites (Pipeworx account, paid plan for thorough depth), covering when to use and alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that returns top-N tools with full schemas and examples, ready to call. It doesn't detail pagination or scoring but is sufficient.

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

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

Description is concise and well-structured: first sentence defines purpose, then usage conditions, then return format, then advice. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

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

No output schema, but description explains return content (names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and lists many domains. It doesn't mention default limit or max (but that's in parameter). Fairly complete for a discovery tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the query parameter accepts aliases (task, q, search, description) and provides two examples. This enhances 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 the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists many domains and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the discovery/search tool, not a specific task tool.

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

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

Explicit guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear when-to-use context.

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

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context: parallel call, sources, output structure, patent soft-fail, news fallback. 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?

Every sentence adds value: examples, guidance, output list. Well front-loaded with examples and core purpose. Despite length, nothing is extraneous for a complex 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?

No output schema exists, but description fully details return fields (CIK, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI), including data sources and potential failures. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds critical clarifications: value must be ticker or zero-padded CIK, names not supported, and type is only 'company'. This goes beyond schema to ensure correct usage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a full cross-source profile of US public companies, with examples of user intents. It distinguishes from siblings by recommending it over chaining single-pack lookups and directing name-based queries to resolve_entity.

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 always prefer this tool for holistic views over chaining other lookups, and notes that names are not supported—use resolve_entity instead. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context about clearing sensitive data, but could mention if deletion is soft/hard. No contradictions.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action verb, concise and informative with no wasted words.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It pairs with sibling tools and covers usage guidance, leaving no gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description for the 'key' parameter is minimal ('Memory key to delete'), adding little beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

Clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' – a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'recall' as the deletion counterpart.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Pairs with remember/recall, providing clear context and alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds the specific actions: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown format. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention potential limitations like rate limiting or error handling.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose ('Generate a production-ready llms.txt file'), then details the process and output. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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

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

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description explains output format and use cases well. It lacks details about error handling or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and appropriate usage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear explanations for both parameters (url and max_links). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 explicitly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for AI crawlers, with a specific verb ('generate'), resource ('llms.txt file'), and outcome. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on file generation rather than scanning or checking.

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 lists three concrete use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor. While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, the use cases imply it is for generation, not for other tasks like visibility checks, which are covered by siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds return field details 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?

Single sentence, no extraneous information. Efficient and front-loaded with key action and parameters.

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 high schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema (implied), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and returns. No gaps noted.

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

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

Schema already has 100% coverage with a description and examples for post_id. The description's example ('e.g., "1"') adds minimal value, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly specifies verb 'Fetch comments', resource 'for a specific post by post ID', and lists return fields (comment ID, commenter name, email, body text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_post, get_posts, and get_users.

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?

Description implicitly states when to use: when you have a post ID and need comments. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds details about returned fields (post ID, user ID, title, body) and the fake data nature, which is useful 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?

Single sentence, no waste. Front-loaded with purpose and immediate details.

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?

Tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema; description covers all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and an example ID format.

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

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

Schema already covers the single parameter 'id' with description 'Post ID to retrieve (1–100).' Tool description reinforces with example '1' and clarifies it's a number, adding marginal value.

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

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

Description clearly states 'Fetch a single fake blog post by ID', specifying the verb, resource, and identifier. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_posts (plural) and get_comments.

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?

Description implies usage when retrieving a specific post by ID but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use. No mention of 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint (false). The description adds that it returns specific fields and is for testing, but no additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. With comprehensive annotations, the bar is lower, and this description adds minimal value.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields. No fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, all return fields described, and output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns.

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 of the 'limit' parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Fetch all fake blog posts for testing and prototyping' with specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('posts'), and lists return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_post' (singular) and 'get_comments'.

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 indicates usage context ('for testing and prototyping'), which is helpful, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'get_post'. The context is clear but lacks 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, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns specific fields and that users are 'fake', which is useful context beyond annotations, but doesn't detail other behaviors like pagination or rate limits.

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 action 'Fetch all fake users'. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

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

For a simple, zero-parameter test tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields. However, it lacks details on whether results are paginated or how many users are returned, but the environment suggests a small fixed dataset.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the structure of the returned data, which is not covered by the input schema (which has no properties).

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 fetches all fake users for testing, listing the specific fields returned (name, username, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_post or get_comments by being the only one that retrieves user data.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied for testing or demo purposes, but no context on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns active subscriptions by default and lists specific fields, providing useful 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, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, 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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently lists return fields. The usage guidance and parameter mention complete the context for this simple 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?

The single parameter 'include_inactive' is fully described in the input schema (including default). The description adds no further parameter details, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the exact fields returned (id, type, params, created_at, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by focusing on listing.

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

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

Explicitly advises when to use: to review monitoring before adding more subscriptions or to find an ID to cancel. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

The description discloses rate limits (5 per identifier per day), that it is free and does not count against quota, and that feedback is read daily and influences roadmap. Annotations are minimal but not contradicted. This adds significant 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?

The description is approximately 100 words, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence is informative. No redundant or unnecessary phrases. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 feedback tool with 3 parameters (2 required, 1 enum, 1 nested object) and no output schema, the description covers usage, constraints, rate limits, and content guidelines. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: 'don't paste the end-user's prompt' and 'be specific'. It also reinforces the enum meanings. 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 clearly states the tool is for sending feedback about broken, missing, or desired features, with specific categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). The title and first sentence align perfectly, distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are query/research 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 when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and what not to do (don't paste end-user prompt). No alternative tool exists among siblings, but the guidance is clear and complete.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, reducing the burden. The description adds value by disclosing caching behavior (5min-1h), data source (CF analytics-engine), and that no PII is involved. One minor gap: caching details could be more precise.

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 yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core capability, lists use cases as clear items, and ends with data source and caching info. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, available windows, use cases, and metadata (no PII, caching). 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'window'. The description adds semantic guidance: 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the enum list.

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 returns 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume' over recent windows (24h, 7d, 30d). It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('trending data'), and the purpose is distinct from siblings like 'discover_tools' or 'ask_pipeworx'.

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 enumerates three explicit use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, aligning use case) and implies when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but context is clear and helpful.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral context: dependency on event or topic, monotonicity and partition checks, semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), partition filter (placeholder slugs), and fill check (theoretical vs realizable edge). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with a clear requirement line first, then sections for each mode, filters, response, and fill check. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value; minor redundancy (e.g., repeated 'partition_check' details) could be trimmed.

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

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

Given the complexity (two modes, multiple checks) and lack of output schema, the description thoroughly covers all aspects: parameters, behavioral filters, response structure, and even mentions a related tool. An agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining accepted formats (e.g., full URLs) and providing behavioral details for each parameter (e.g., event mode walks child markets, topic mode searches related events).

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool finds arbitrage opportunities using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_edge_tracker, though the functionality is distinct.

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 each mode (event for specific market, topic for cross-event scanning) and that calling with no args fails. It also directs to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, providing an alternative 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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: caching policy (1h KV-level), signal reliability warnings (Fed bets with unreliable paid data), and detailed diagnostics for empty segments. 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?

Well-structured but verbose (over 500 words). The front-loaded summary is good, but the detailed model family explanations could be trimmed without losing clarity. Some redundancy exists.

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 comprehensively covers response structure (by_segment, diagnostics), edge cases (Fed bets, caching), and tradeable-edge knobs. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable usage context for parameters like min_kelly ('Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly') and explains parameter interactions (e.g., min_partition_leg_kelly for partition arbs).

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 distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing unique model families and response structure.

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 for usage, such as 'Built for "what should I bet on today"', and explains tradeable-edge knobs. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds significant context: data gaps on no-scan days, history depth limit (60 days), decay computed from daily closes not intraday, and snapshot-based mechanics. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. It explains response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limits. While quite detailed, every sentence adds value; minor trimming 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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains return fields and their meanings, including examples (trend values, decay computation). It also covers constraints (TTL, data gaps) and how snapshots are generated, making the tool's behavior completely understandable.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (days and window). The description reiterates their meaning but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema's descriptions. The term 'snapshot family' provides minor domain context.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (raw current edges) and polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on historical persistence.

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

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

The description explains when to use the tool (to differentiate fresh vs. old wide edges and assess decay) and includes limits like 60-day TTL and daily close data. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context and sibling tool names imply the distinction.

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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool checks against live order-book depth, that partial fills can create directional risk, and that the verdict field reflects fill quality. 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: core purpose first, then bullet-style sections for the two modes, and a concluding usage guideline. Every sentence adds value, though some minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the default size_usd). Front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and complex behavior (two modes, multifield returns, edge cases), the description is exceptionally complete. It names all return fields per mode, explains verdict categories, warns about thin legs and forced directional risk, and provides realistic usage context (dominant loss mode).

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters described in schema), but the description adds significant meaning: it explains how size_usd is interpreted differently for single-market (spend/proceeds) vs basket (settlement notional), provides defaults and clamping, explains the side defaults, and specifies that market and event are mutually exclusive with one required.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by stating the tool's purpose as a prerequisite check.

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 the tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the risk of not using it (unhedged directional position) and gives context about thin books and partial fills.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes far beyond, detailing safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross_type) and explaining the scenarios that produce warnings. 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-organized with clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS). Every sentence adds meaningful information, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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

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

Given the complexity of cross-venue spread detection and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields, edge cases, and warning conditions. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to correctly interpret results.

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 three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the two modes, providing a full list of topic shortcuts, and clarifying the override behavior, which enhances the schema information.

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

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

The description clearly states it is a 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question' and explains the purpose of comparing prices across venues. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on inter-venue spreads.

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

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

Provides explicit guidance on two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit event pairing), along with warnings that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility_warning. It also explains when spreads are meaningless (temporal misalignment, non-equivalent bet shapes), helping the agent decide when to use or avoid 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main behavioral addition is explaining that omitting the key lists all keys, and that it is scoped to an identifier. This goes beyond annotations by providing usage 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?

Description is two sentences, starting with the core action. Every sentence carries essential information: function, usage example, and pairing with siblings. No fluff.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers retrieval, listing, scoping, and related tools completely. 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial semantics: 'omit the key argument to list all keys.' This clarifies the optional parameter's dual behavior beyond the schema's simple 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: 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys.' It specifies the verb (retrieve/list) and the resource (saved memories), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'forget' by mentioning pairing.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' It also mentions scoping ('Scoped to your identifier') and alternatives ('Pair with remember to save, forget to delete').

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

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes mark_read which modifies state (flags events as read). This is a direct contradiction, so score is 1 per instructions.

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

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

Single paragraph, four sentences, front-loaded with main action. 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 5 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description explains return format, state update behavior, and alternative access method, making it fully informative for an agent.

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

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond schema, e.g., explaining mark_read effect and giving example for type. No param is left unexplained.

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 pulls fired events from a subscription feed, specifying the resource and action. It lists key return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and distinguishes from sibling 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 filtering by type and since, setting mark_read for read tracking, and mentions that polling works. Also notes an alternative endpoint. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared to siblings, but is generally 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: fans out to multiple sources, fallback logic, soft-fail for patents, and output format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). No contradictions.

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

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

Description is well-structured with front-loaded examples and concise explanations. Every sentence adds value. Slightly lengthy due to enumeration of sources and fallback details, but still efficient.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return value structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs), handles edge cases (patents soft-fail, GDELT→GNews fallback), and provides parameter constraints. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning beyond schema: explains relative shorthand ('7d', '30d', '3m', '1y'), typical usage ('Use '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring'), and that value accepts ticker or CIK. This helps agents understand parameter semantics better than 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months'. It lists specific use cases and sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO), and distinguishes it from sibling 'entity_profile', which is for static profiles.

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

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

Clear usage guidance: provides example queries, specifies when to use (e.g., 'What's new with X') and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'). Also explains fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews) and soft-fail for patents.

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 describing key-value storage, scoping by identifier, and session limits (24 hours for anonymous). Annotations already indicate idempotence (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), so description complements well.

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

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

Efficiently front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value. No redundancy, clear structure, and within reasonable length.

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

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

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description fully covers storage behavior, session scope, usage, and tool pairing. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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

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

Schema covers 100% with descriptions for key and value. Description repeats the schema but adds example keys (e.g., 'subject_property'), offering slight additional guidance but no critical new 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 uses specific verbs ('Save data the agent will need to reuse later') and lists concrete use cases (resolved ticker, target address, etc.), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like recall and forget.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward'), provides context on persistence (authenticated vs anonymous sessions), and pairs with recall and forget for retrieval/deletion.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about cascading lookups and replacing manual steps, which goes beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with examples and structured by entity type. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be tightened but remains effective.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return values (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, citation URIs) for each type. It covers disambiguation behavior and scope, making it complete for an identifier resolver.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds practical examples (e.g., 'AAPL', 'ozempic') and auto-disambiguation details, enhancing meaning beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool resolves names to canonical identifiers, with specific examples and supported types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'entity_profile' or 'compare_entities', which slightly reduces clarity.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the 'FIRST' phrasing effectively sets it as the initial step.

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

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

Description details the process: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. This adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), which are non-contradictory.

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

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

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, include usage context and output details, with zero wasted words. Highly efficient and well-structured.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains output content and ranking logic. Given the tool's complexity (multi-entity comparison, dependent on another tool), the description is complete and sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds critical semantics: 'First entry treated as the subject for narrative; rest are competitors' for entities, and explains context as shared context applied to every probe. This meaningfully enhances 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?

Description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check under the hood. It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check by focusing on multi-entity ranking, making purpose specific and actionable.

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

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

Description provides clear use-case context ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It implies when to use but does not explicitly exclude single-entity checks or mention alternatives, though sibling differentiation is inherently 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description adds critical behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, sources_failed will list timeouts, and the rest still returns. 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 well-structured: starts with the composite purpose, then use cases, return fields, and limitations. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. It front-loads the essential 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format: summary block with fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. Also covers error handling and timing. For a tool with two simple parameters and complex output, this is complete.

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

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

Input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (package name, scoped accepted; version defaults to latest). The description adds little beyond that, only confirming the default behavior. 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?

Description clearly states the tool is a composite check for adding an npm package, covering license, advisories, version history, bundle size, etc. It uses specific verbs like 'fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia' and clearly distinguishes from siblings, none of which perform this composite check.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also notes NPM-only in v1 and directs to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems, providing clear guidance on when not to 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?

Discloses beyond annotations: returns passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char windows, caps at 200K chars with truncation flag. Annotations already declare safety (readOnly, etc.), and description adds rich behavioral detail.

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: first explains purpose and result format, second gives usage context, third adds technical details. No redundant words. Front-loaded with key 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return values (passages with offsets and scores). Covers input constraints (max chars), internal mechanics (embeddings, windows), and workflow pairing. Complete for a tool with 3 params.

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. Description enhances by specifying text as 'document text', query with examples, limit as '1-20, default 5'. Adds maximum length for text parameter, which is not in 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 semantic search inside a fetched record, using specific verb 'semantic search' and resource 'record'. It distinguishes itself by specifying it operates on already-fetched text, unlike sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded which pairs with it.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. It also mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing guidance on alternative workflow. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral details: returns subscription id, requires specific account type, SMS rate limits, webhook HMAC signing and auto-disable after 10 failures. 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 densely informative but slightly long. It starts with the core purpose and uses efficient bullet-style enumeration. Every sentence adds value; however, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for types and delivery).

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and complex behavior (delivery channels, type-specific params), the description covers inputs thoroughly, explains lifecycle (idempotent, non-destructive), and notes the return value (subscription id). It is complete for a creation 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%, yet the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. For 'type', it explains each enum value with real examples. For 'params', it provides specific structures per type. For 'delivery', it details SMS verification, email validation, and webhook behavior including HMAC and auto-disable. This greatly aids correct parameter usage.

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

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

The description starts with a clear verb-resource pair ('Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream'), specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unsubscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on creation.

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

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

The description provides extensive context on when to use the tool, including account requirements (Pipeworx OAuth), supported subscription types with examples, delivery channel options, and limitations (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for listing or removing subscriptions.

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, so safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral details: call with no arguments for full spread, or pass topic to focus; returns category-bucketed examples with exact tool+argument shape. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with example queries and clear purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed. Still effective 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 role as an onboarding entry point with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns, how to use it, and its relationship to other meta-tools. It covers the key aspects needed for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (1 parameter fully described). The description adds examples of topic values (e.g., 'finance', 'pharma', 'betting') and explains how to use the parameter to focus, going beyond the schema enumeration. This provides meaningful additional guidance.

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 categorized example questions to help users understand Pipeworx capabilities. It lists specific topic areas and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' by focusing on onboarding and learning meta-tools.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and mentions alternatives such as 'ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities'. Provides clear context for when to use the 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?

The description adds crucial context beyond annotations: explains that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and historical events stay accessible via recent_alerts. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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

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

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states action and constraint, second explains effect. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description fully covers purpose, ownership, behavioral effect (soft delete), and how history is preserved. References sibling tool for 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% and already describes the 'id' parameter as a subscription uuid. The description does not add new semantics beyond indicating it's used for cancellation, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Cancel a subscription by id' and includes ownership enforcement, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Specifies when to use (cancel your own subscriptions) via ownership enforcement, and what happens after (history remains available). Explicit alternatives are not mentioned, but 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 declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the domain limitation (company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL) and the return format (verdict with citation and delta). 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 informative and well-structured, starting with trigger phrases followed by purpose, domain, and return value. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent.

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 input schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: domain limitation, return value details, and usage context. It is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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

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

The input schema has one parameter 'claim' with a good description. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides additional examples and context about the claim format, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema 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: fact-checking natural-language claims, specifically company-financial claims for US public companies. It provides trigger phrases and distinguishes from sibling research tools by focusing on claim verification with structured verdicts.

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' and specifies the domain. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context implies alternatives for non-financial claims. This 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.