search_icd10Search ICD-10-CM diagnosis/billing codes by keyword or code (keyless, offline source: NLM). E.g. "type 2 diabetes" -> [{code:"E11.9", description:"Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications"}].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 15). | |
| query | Yes | A condition name or an ICD-10 code fragment. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it is keyless and uses an offline NLM source, but does not discuss rate limits, auth, or side effects beyond what annotations cover.
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 two-sentence description plus example is highly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with good annotations and schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the source, input, and example output. Minor omission: it does not specify if multiple results can be returned or pagination, but given the example list, it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented. The description reinforces that 'query' can be a condition or code and provides an example, but adds minimal extra beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches ICD-10-CM diagnosis/billing codes by keyword or code, with a concrete example. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_loinc by being specific to ICD-10 codes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for ICD-10 code lookup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_loinc, search_medical_terms). No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
While most tools have detailed descriptions, the large number of similar data-querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, etc.) and overlapping domains (Polymarket, company research, medical) create ambiguity for an agent.
Tool names mix conventions: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), camelCase absent, some with 'pipeworx' prefix, others not (bet_research, compare_entities). No consistent verb_noun pattern.
33 tools for a server named 'Medical Codes' is excessive and misaligned. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated domains (finance, prediction markets, general research), making the count inappropriate for the stated purpose.
For medical coding, only three tools exist (search_icd10, search_loinc, search_medical_terms). The rest are tangential or unrelated, leaving severe gaps in medical code coverage.