read_feedRead a curated law & courts feed by its id (from list_feeds). Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary). Optionally filter items by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Curated feed id (from list_feeds). | |
| limit | No | Max items (1-50, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword filter over item title/summary. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds output structure (title, link, published, summary) and optional filtering, beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). No contradictions. Could mention rate limits or data freshness, but adequate.
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 main action, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With good annotations and complete schema, description covers output fields and optional filtering. No output schema is needed as description lists return fields. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or total item count, but limit parameter handles this.
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%; each parameter is well-described. The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond restating the feed id and keyword filter. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (read), resource (curated feed by id), and output format (normalized items). Distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_feed and list_feeds by specifying 'curated' and 'normalized'.
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: feed id comes from list_feeds, optional keyword filtering. Does not explicitly contrast with fetch_feed or state when not to use, but gives sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded all route through the same 5,721 tools, polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/bet_research/polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market opportunities, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence cover the same probe. An agent would struggle to pick the right one without reading every description carefully.
There are coherent subfamilies (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, remember/recall/forget, list/read/fetch_feed), but the overall set mixes verb-first names (list_feeds, validate_claim, fetch_feed) with noun-first names (entity_profile, bet_research, deep_research) and adjective-led names (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
34 tools is heavy for a server branded 'Law Feeds,' and many tools are off-domain (Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility marketing, generic memory). The breadth could justify a larger catalog, but the overlapping research/Polymarket tools inflate the count beyond what the surface needs.
As a general data-gateway, the set is fairly complete: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. Relative to the 'Law Feeds' identity, though, the surface is shallow — only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed serve that purpose, with no feed search, management, or update capabilities.