list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields and clarifying that only active subscriptions are listed by default (with inactive optionally included), which complements the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the action and return fields, the second gives usage context. Every detail earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the return format explicitly, the default active-only scope, and the intended use cases. Combined with the rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), it is fully self-sufficient 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter include_inactive, with its own description. The tool description's phrase 'active subscriptions' implicitly reinforces the default behavior but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'subscriptions' and clearly scopes to 'the caller's active subscriptions,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe. The return fields are explicitly enumerated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, multiple AI visibility tools, ask_pipeworx vs deep_research). Agents will have difficulty choosing the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.
Tool names use a mix of styles (snake_case, descriptive phrases) without a consistent verb_noun pattern. For example, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'bet_research' have different naming conventions. This inconsistency makes it harder for agents to predict tool names.
32 tools is on the high side for a single server. Many tools could be merged (e.g., multiple polymarket tools). The count feels excessive for the scope, causing cognitive load and potential selection errors.
The tool set covers a wide range of domains (prediction markets, company data, fact-checking, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., limited entity types for company/drug only). Redundancy in some areas makes the set feel bloated rather than complete.