Mdn Search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds details on default model, API key requirement, and return structure, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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

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

Description is concise (three sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No redundancy or fluff.

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

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient operational details (what it does, how to use, return structure). Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable.

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 parameter descriptions. Description adds value by explaining the default model and the role of _apiKey for Anthropic probing, clarifying usage beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about a business/brand/product/topic and scores visibility per model. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other domains like ask_pipeworx or polymarket_*.

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 (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch checks, competitive monitoring) and how to use (default model vs Anthropic with key). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools, 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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a fast single call, works on every tier, routes globally, and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

Though lengthy, every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the key message (“PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH”), gives concrete usage triggers, examples, and alternative tools, and avoids redundant fluff. The structure is well-organized for a broad routing 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?

For a tool with a single logical parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, what kind of answers to expect, and how it differs from siblings. It leaves no critical 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 all parameters are aliases for the same natural-language question. The description adds practical meaning by listing example queries and emphasizing that the question can be about current or historical data across many domains, which helps an agent construct a good question.

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 what the tool does: it routes questions to the right tool among 5,430 verified sources, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with citation URIs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, and contrasts with web search.

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

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

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (“START HERE for most questions”, “Use whenever the user asks…”), provides examples of appropriate queries, and names alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) with conditions for when to step up. It also clarifies that it handles breaking news itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the beta status, the fact that no candidate is currently active (so it matches stable exactly), and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

The description is concise but covers all key points: what it is, current state, and usage. It is not overly verbose and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 is a router with a single required parameter, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, current behavior, and usage. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which compensates for lack of output schema.

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

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

The input schema covers all six parameters with 100% coverage, describing them as aliases for 'question'. The description merely references 'same arguments' without adding new semantics, 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 this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It uses the specific verb 'ask' and resource 'Pipeworx Beta', and distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by noting the experimental routing context.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives such as ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it lacks explicit 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?

While annotations already mark readOnly and non-destructive, the description adds crucial behaviors: it returns a structured {answer, evidence, ...} or an explicit refusal with a refusal_reason enum, and it costs an extra LLM call. It also clarifies it uses only the tool result content, preventing hallucination. 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 information-dense yet efficiently structured, front-loaded with the tool's core value proposition. It includes all essential details in two sentences 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 the tool's sophisticated behavior (grounded extraction, explicit refusal modes), the description fully specifies success/failure return shapes, possible refusal reasons, use cases, and cost tradeoff. Since no output schema exists, this fills the gap.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters (one logical question with aliases), and the description does not need to add further meaning. It references filling arguments but not specific parameter details. 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 opens with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' naming a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by detailing the routing plus a grounded extraction step, making the tool's function and scope clear.

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 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and contrasts with 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This is direct alternative selection advice.

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 safe, idempotent, and read-only behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, such as return format or pagination.

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?

Only one short sentence, which is concise but omits critical details. It is not bloated, but the minimal structure fails to fully serve its 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details, the description is severely incomplete. The tool retrieves browser compatibility data, but how to specify it (slug, locale) is unclear. An output schema exists but is not described.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'slug' or 'locale' parameters. The agent must rely solely on the schema properties, which lack descriptions.

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

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

The description states it provides 'Browser Compatibility Data block for a feature page,' which clearly identifies the resource (browser compatibility data) and implies a retrieval action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' by focusing on specific feature 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search'). No exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided.

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 (readOnlyHint, etc.) are consistent and the description extensively details behavior: low-confidence short-circuit, closed market status, wide-spread handling, resolution-rule risk, parent event extractor, news fallbacks. No contradiction.

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

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

The description is long but well-organized with labeled sections (RESPONSE SHAPES, RESOLVER CONTRACT, etc.). The first sentence is clear and front-loaded. Every part adds essential information 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?

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively documents return fields, edge cases (low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads, cancellation rules, parent events, news errors), making it fully actionable.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds significant value: explains market parameter can be slug, URL, or question text; depth enum with default; include_raw with usage guidance. Provides context beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool researches Polymarket bets by pulling Pipeworx data. It specifies input types (slug, URL, text) and output (evidence packet + market-vs-model comparison). This distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_edges, which focus on edge detection.

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 use cases are given ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y') and examples of classifier fan-outs. However, it doesn't directly contrast with sibling tools for when not to use, though the context implies.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. Description adds context: parallel execution, handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and replacement of 8-15 sequential lookups. 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 somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with usage examples and efficient in conveying key points. Slight room for tightening, but overall 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, description explains return value: paired data plus citation URIs per entity. Covers all necessary aspects for agent understanding, including sorting behavior and coverage of financial data sources.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains that 'company' type pulls revenue, net income, cash, debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL, while 'drug' pulls FAERS data. For values, clarifies input format (tickers/CIKs for companies, names for drugs).

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 defines the tool's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It includes specific verb examples ('compare', 'vs', 'versus') and distinguishes from sequential lookups. The description differentiates between entity types and the data each pulls.

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 ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. Provides concrete query examples and specifies when to use each entity type. Clearly differentiates from alternative sequential lookups.

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

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, disclosing that results include gaps[] (never invented), contradictions[] for standard/thorough depths, hop fields, citation URIs, semantic excerpting, and expected latency (15-60s, thorough up to 90s). It also clarifies that it is NOT open-web search, aligning with 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?

The description is lengthy but every sentence adds value, covering account requirements, use cases, alternatives, behavior, output packet, and performance expectations. It is well-structured but could be slightly trimmed without losing essential information. Given the tool's complexity, the length is justified, though borderline on 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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, how it behaves, its outputs, limitations, and alternatives, all while the schema and annotations are minimal. No output schema exists, so the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the return findings packet. Complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The description adds detailed meaning to the depth parameter: 'quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop + contradictions[] scan), thorough=8 (paid; adds full iterative hop + contradictions[] scan)'. The question parameter is described as accepting broad/multi-part natural language. This enriches the schema's 100% 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's purpose: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1408 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call' and 'Decomposes your question into focused facets, routes each to the right one of 5,430 tools IN PARALLEL, and returns a findings packet'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by explicitly comparing use cases.

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 is provided: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx', and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier'. This clearly states when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns top-N most relevant tools with full schemas and examples, ready to call directly. 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 concise: two sentences plus a list of domains. It front-loads purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, with no 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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters with aliases, no output schema), the description explains the return value (top-N tools with schemas) and usage context (call first). It covers all necessary aspects 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 the description does not need to add much. It provides example natural language queries in the schema examples and references task descriptions. However, the description itself does not elaborate on parameter formats beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding tools by describing data or task. It lists specific domains and distinguishes from sibling tools like search and search_within by noting it returns tool definitions, not data. The verb 'discover' and resource 'tools' are explicit.

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

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

The description explicitly says when to use: 'when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for' and 'Call this FIRST... when you have many tools available.' It implicitly suggests not to use if you already have a specific tool in mind. No explicit when-not, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behaviors: it fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields, notes the USPTO API sunset (soft-failure), and describes fallback mechanisms (GDELT→GNews). 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 relatively long but front-loaded with example queries and a clear directive. Every sentence adds meaningful context; no filler. Slightly verbose but efficient given the complexity.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all returned data groups (CIK, filings, fundamentals, patents status, news, LEI) and explains constraints (patents soft-fail, name restriction). It is largely complete for a holistic profile tool, though some structural details (e.g., JSON keys) are omitted.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing example values, explaining that names are not supported (must use ticker or CIK), and noting the type parameter is currently limited to 'company'.

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: generating a full cross-source profile of a US public company. It gives concrete example queries and lists exactly what data is returned, distinguishing it from siblings like 'resolve_entity' and singling out that it should be preferred over chaining multiple lookups.

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

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

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool (holistic view) and when not to (if only a name is available, use resolve_entity first). It also specifies the preferred method over chaining individual lookups.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description's 'Delete' matches but adds no behavioral detail 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?

Two succinct sentences: action stated first, then usage guidance. 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?

Simple one-param tool with annotations covering behavior. Description adds usage context and sibling references. No output schema needed.

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

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

Schema covers parameter 'key' with description 'Memory key to delete'. Description does not add extra meaning beyond this.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (memory), and the method (by key). It distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'recall' by mentioning them.

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 (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and pairs with related tools 'remember' and 'recall'.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: fetches page, extracts title/description/links, emits standard markdown. No contradictions. Could mention error handling, but acceptable.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and audience, followed by process and use cases. No redundant or unclear language. 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?

Given simple parameters, no output schema, and safe annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it works, and why to use it. No gaps.

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

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description provides example URL format and max_links default/max, adding slight value beyond schema. Baseline 3 justified.

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 verb (generate), resource (llms.txt file), and scope (for any URL). Distinguishes from siblings by its specific output format and use case for AI crawler indexing.

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 lists three use cases (client site indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and covers common scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns specific fields and implies default scope (active subscriptions), 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?

Two concise sentences: first sentence states purpose and output fields, second sentence provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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

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

Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage adequately. It could mention return type but is sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter include_inactive fully described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond stating 'active subscriptions' which aligns with the default.

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

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

The description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the returned fields, and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe which perform different actions.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the sibling tools imply 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?

With annotations offering only false hints, the description carries the burden. It discloses rate limits ('5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and processing cadence ('team reads digests daily'). It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, adding useful behavioral context.

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

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

Though longer than typical descriptions, every sentence earns its place. It's logically ordered: purpose, use cases, exclusions, formatting guidance, quota. No redundancy or fluff; the length is justified by the complexity of routing feedback correctly.

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 and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, when not to use, content guidelines, rate limits, and cost. The absence of return value details is acceptable for a fire-and-forget feedback submission.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by telling users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not to paste end-user prompts, which directly guides the message parameter. It doesn't elaborate on the context object, but the schema already covers that.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming exact use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly excludes non-Pipeworx tools, making it unmistakable.

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

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

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each feedback type, plus a strong exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and tells users to file elsewhere for other MCP servers. It also clarifies ambiguity with 'Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists.'

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, cache duration (5min-1h). 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?

Three well-structured sentences. First sentence states core function, second lists use cases in bullet format, third adds technical details. 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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). The description covers what is returned (top tools, packs, total calls), caching behavior, and data derivation. It does not specify output format but that is acceptable given the simplicity.

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

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

The single parameter 'window' has 100% schema coverage with enum values. The description adds semantic guidance on how to choose windows (short for hot now, long for steady-state), which is helpful beyond the raw enum.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('returns') and the resource ('top tools, top packs, and total call volume'). It also provides the scope (recent window) and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on trending/aggregated data rather than specific queries.

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

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

Three explicit use cases are listed, guiding the agent on when to invoke the tool (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool, assessing alignment). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, etc. The description adds extensive behavioral context: scanning top 200 markets, walking child markets, partition checks, Jaccard similarity, placeholder filtering, fill check against live CLOB 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?

The description is detailed but well-structured with clear sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK). Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains response structure (opportunities[], partition_check, fill check info) and provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the effect of each mode (e.g., event slug vs topic seed question) and how outputs differ, but schema already covers basic meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) and explains the semantic anchor and partition filter, making it distinct from siblings like polymarket_edges.

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

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

Explicitly guides when to use each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'event (recommended for a specific market)', 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. Also provides fill check advice and references polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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

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

The description reveals extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: model families (crypto_price, news_momentum, partition_overround, concentrated_longshot), calculation methods (lognormal barrier, GDELT ratio, bias correction), filters (placeholder-slug, partition gaps), and output structure with diagnostics. It also discloses caching (1h KV). 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 thorough but verbose (400+ words). It is front-loaded with purpose and well-structured with numbered segments and bold labels, but includes very specific details (e.g., per-sport α values) that could be condensed. While organized, it is not concise for an AI agent to quickly 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics) and per-opportunity fields (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, liquidity, etc.). It also covers all parameters and provides diagnostics for empty segments. This makes the tool self-contained for an AI agent.

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

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

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the tool description adds valuable context: e.g., for `slippage_pp`, it explains subtraction from raw edge and provides Polymarket fee context; `min_kelly` is clarified as skip for too-small opportunities; `category_filter` lists exact segment names. This adds meaning beyond the schema, raising it above the baseline of 3.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs ('Scan', 'return opportunities') and resources ('Top Polymarket markets', 'Pipeworx data') to clearly state what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx-driven mispricing and avoiding manual paging. The phrase 'Built for "what should I bet on today"' captures its core mission succinctly.

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 the tool is for discovering betting opportunities and mentions that Fed bets are surfaced but excluded from ranking due to unreliable signals. It also describes tradeable-edge knobs for filtering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edge_tracker, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains data source (daily snapshots), telemetry computation (trend, decay_pp_per_day), handling of expired opportunities, snapshot date gaps, and the meaning of negative edge values. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds critical context on mutability state and data freshness. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with clear sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS). Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise. However, given the complexity of the tool, the detail is warranted.

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 values: tracked[] with detailed fields (edge_pp_net time-series, first_seen, trend, decay), expired[] with lifespan_days, and snapshot_dates. It also covers data gaps, TTL, and computation details. This provides complete information for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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

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

Input schema has 100% coverage (both parameters described). The description adds context (defaults, max days) and explains the response structure (tracked, expired arrays), which is not in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema, but the schema already provides the basics, so an incremental improvement 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 it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (current edges) and polymarket_arbitrage, making the purpose specific and 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?

The description explains when to use this tool, contrasting a fresh wide edge with a persisting one, and notes that decay indicates no one is willing to take the trade. It also documents data limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps) and that decay is computed from daily closes, not intraday. This provides clear context for usage without explicit alternatives, which are implicit given sibling tool names.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: walking the order-book ladder, returning specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, etc.), and highlighting risks like forced_directional_risk. It provides transparency beyond annotations without contradiction.

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

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

The description is well-structured with section headers (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) and front-loaded with core purpose. However, it is verbose (multiple paragraphs), and some sentences could be trimmed for conciseness without losing essential 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 having no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers both modes, return values, default behaviors, usage guidelines, and risk warnings. It compensates for the missing output schema by detailing output fields and their meanings.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: explaining the distinction between market and event modes, clarifying that size_usd in basket mode is settlement notional, and detailing the default side logic for baskets. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth, with two distinct modes (single-market and basket). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use this tool before acting on their signals.

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

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

The description explicitly recommends using this tool before acting on polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500, and warns about risks like partial basket fills. It also states requirements (one of market or event). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the guidance is clear and context-rich.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description details safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross counters) and explains the conditions under which spreads are meaningful or not. 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 long but well-structured, using sections and bullet points (implied). Each sentence adds necessary detail about modes, response, and safety. It could be slightly more concise, but it is not overly verbose for the complexity.

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

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fully explains the response structure (leg-by-leg prices, spreads, safety fields) and edge cases. Everything needed to use the tool correctly is present.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the two modes, how parameters interact (overriding), and providing concrete examples. This compensates for the lack of enums and enhances understanding.

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

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

The description starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by specifying the cross-venue nature and the macro shortcuts.

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 lists two modes ('topic' and explicit tickers) with examples and explains when they are appropriate. It warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings, guiding the agent to use explicit pairings when needed.

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. The description adds scoping context (by identifier) and pairing info, adding 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with good annotations and schema, the description completely covers purpose, usage, and behavior. No need for output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with description of 'key'. The description adds the key behavior: omit to list all keys, which is not in schema but essential for 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 it retrieves values saved via remember or lists all keys. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (remember, forget) by specifying its retrieval function.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use: to look up context stored earlier. Mentions pairing with remember and forget, and scoping to identifier, providing clear 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?

Adds valuable details beyond annotations, such as the return format (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and the side effect of mark_read. Annotations already indicate safety, and the description enhances without contradiction.

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

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words; efficiently covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and alternatives.

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 explains return fields and side effects. Covers all parameters, mentions REST alternative, and is 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%, but the description adds meaning: explains type filtering, ISO timestamp format for since, mark_read side effect, and unread_only behavior. It also mentions default limit and range, going 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 pulls fired events from the subscription feed, using specific verbs and resource identification. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on alert events rather than subscription management.

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 on when to use (reading recent alerts) and mentions an alternative REST endpoint. However, lacks explicit when-not or direct comparison to sibling tools for exclusion.

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, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds rich behavioral detail: fans out to SEC, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO soft-fail; return structure with grouped changes, total_changes, and citation URIs. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

Single paragraph efficiently packs purpose, examples, multi-source behavior, parameter usage, return format, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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 explains the return structure. Covers all needed aspects for an agent: what it does, when to use, parameters, expected output, and limitations. Complete for a tool of this 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 the description adds value beyond schema: since parameter examples ('7d', '30d', '3m', '1y') and typical usage suggestion; value parameter examples (ticker or CIK); type parameter confirms only 'company' supported. Goes above baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a change feed for a company over a window, with multiple query examples ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y'). It distinguishes itself by name from sibling entity_profile, which provides static profile instead.

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

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

Explicitly provides when to use (dynamic changes) and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'). Also gives typical monitoring recommendation ('Use 30d or 1m') and query pattern examples.

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

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds persistence behavior (session vs authenticated), scoping by identifier, and 24-hour memory retention for anonymous sessions, which goes beyond annotations.

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

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then technical constraints. 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?

For a simple key-value store with 2 params and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers purpose, usage, persistence, scoping, and sibling tools.

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 key and value. The description adds context and examples but does not introduce new semantic 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 saves data for reuse across conversations and sessions, providing examples like resolved tickers, addresses, and preferences. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 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?

The description explicitly advises when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward' and pairs with recall/forget. It also notes scoping and persistence details, giving clear guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that each call cascades through several internal endpoints, replacing 2-3 manual lookups, and details the exact output for each type, exceeding 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 front-loaded with example queries and structured with clear sections for each type. While slightly lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose and there is minimal redundancy.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively details return values for each type, including citation URIs. It covers the main use cases and internal behavior, though it omits error handling or edge cases.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description further clarifies the 'value' parameter by listing accepted formats (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand or generic for drug) and providing examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool resolves user-spoken names to canonical identifiers. It provides example queries and specifies supported entity types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like entity_profile.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', giving clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like entity_profile for more details.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds context: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns per-entity score, confidence, and signal density. No contradiction; description complements annotations 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?

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for quicker scanning.

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 explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers all four parameters, required and optional, and provides examples. Fully adequate for an agent to use the tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds valuable context: first entity is 'subject' for narrative, models default to workers-ai, anthropic requires _apiKey. This clarifies usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly specifies comparing AI visibility across multiple entities, probing with ai_visibility_check, ranking results, and surfacing most/least recognized. It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check by emphasizing multi-entity comparison and ranking.

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 a concrete use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and an example question. It notes the first entity is treated as subject for narrative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like ai_visibility_check or compare_entities, though it's implied.

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 true, destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: fans out across services, partial failures degrade gracefully, first measurement can take 5-30s, sources_failed will list timeouts. 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 relatively long but each sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral details, then ecosystem limitation. Could be slightly more terse 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (composite call across two services, multiple data points), the description thoroughly explains what it does, what it returns (summary fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions), partial failure handling, and ecosystem limitation. No output schema, so describing return structure is essential and well done.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the detail that scoped packages are accepted for 'package' and that 'version' defaults to latest, but these are already covered in the schema descriptions. No additional parameter meaning beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a composite check for npm packages combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It specifies the verb ('scan'), resource ('dependency'), and scope ('npm package'), distinguishing it from siblings like deps.dev:version or other research 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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me''. Also states exclusion: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.' This helps the agent decide when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds 'MDN content' context but no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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

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

Very concise single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. Could include a bit more detail without being verbose.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on pagination, locale usage, and result structure.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter-level information 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 states verb 'search' across specific resource 'MDN content', clearly distinguishing from sibling 'search_within' which likely searches within a subset.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_within' or other search-related tools. Context of use is implied but not explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds technical details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation and flagging. 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 fairly long but every sentence contributes functional information. It is front-loaded with core purpose. Could be slightly more terse, but highly 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?

Covers purpose, usage context, technical limits, algorithmic details, and comparison to sibling. Enough for an agent to decide and invoke correctly, especially given rich annotations and no output schema needed.

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

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

Schema has 100% description coverage. Description adds value by explaining the nature of 'text' (e.g., SEC 10-K body, article) and 'query' (natural-language examples). Also clarifies 'limit' implicitly as 'top-N passages.' Exceeds baseline 3.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' specifying the verb (search), resource (a fetched record), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' by emphasizing intra-record search and pairing with grounding.

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 the record is too big to cram into the prompt,' and contrasts with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' as a companion tool. Also provides a verification use case via offsets.

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 non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return of subscription id, persistence requirement, delivery channel behavior with rate limits (10/day sms), webhook signing and auto-disable after 10 failures.

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 bullet points, but slightly lengthy. However, every sentence adds value and 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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers all types, delivery options, constraints (OAuth, rate limits, webhook signing), and return value. Completeness is high.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. Description enriches each parameter with detailed examples and constraints (e.g., sec_8k items, fred_series series_id, delivery phone verification).

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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription and returns an id. It lists supported types and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

Provides context that OAuth account is required, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the sibling list and examples imply appropriate scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: returns example questions with tool+argument shapes, call with no args for full spread, optional topic filtering. 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 slightly long but well-organized and front-loaded with purpose. Uses bullet-style enumeration of categories. No wasted sentences.

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

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

No output schema, but description fully explains return type (category-bucketed example questions with tool shapes) and usage scenarios. Complete for an onboarding tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter. Description explains topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and behavior when omitted, adding meaning beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is an onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions with tool call shapes. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by specifying it's for exploring what to ask, not for answering.

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 describes optional topic parameter. Does not explicitly list alternatives but context from sibling list suggests it's the discovery 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns a summary for a given slug, but does not disclose additional traits like response format or potential limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence. Efficiently communicates core functionality, though could include brief mention of the locale parameter.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks explanation of the locale parameter and does not describe the return value beyond 'page summary'.

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 0%. The description only mentions slug with examples, but does not explain the 'locale' parameter. Without further detail, the agent may not understand that locale is optional or how it modifies the summary.

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 page summary by slug, with concrete examples showing the expected input. It is specific (verb 'summary' and resource 'page by slug') and distinct from siblings like 'search' or 'entity_profile'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'entity_profile'. Lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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 non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Description adds value by detailing soft-delete (deactivation) and historical availability, enhancing transparency.

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 succinct sentences with no waste. Purpose, constraint, and behavior are front-loaded.

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

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

Given low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage constraint, and post-call behavior.

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

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

Schema covers parameter 'id' with description. No additional parameter information in tool description; baseline 3 due to 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?

Clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id', specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes 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?

Explicitly states ownership enforcement: 'you can only cancel your own subscriptions.' Also explains the deactivation behavior and references sibling tool recent_alerts for historical data.

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 valuable context: the specific return verdicts, the inclusion of grounded citations, and the explanation of the two pipeline paths. This enhances transparency 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads example queries, then explains use cases and processing details. Every sentence is informative, and it efficiently conveys a wealth of detail without being verbose.

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 values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and covers the two distinct processing pathways. For a tool with only two parameters, this provides a complete picture of its behavior and outputs.

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 meaning by explaining the tolerance_pct parameter's default and override behavior ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection') and providing examples for the claim parameter. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides specific examples of user intents ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and explicitly outlines two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for others), distinguishing it from other tools.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, though the scope is well-defined.

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