unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, deactivation instead of deletion, and linkage to recent_alerts. Consistent with annotations (non-destructive, idempotent). 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 sentences, no waste. First sentence delivers core action, second adds key behavioral details. 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?
Covers ownership, effect (deactivation), and retention of historical data. No output schema, so return value not needed. Could mention idempotency or side effects, but sufficient for a simple mutation 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 already covers id parameter with description 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' Description adds no additional parameter information. Schema coverage is 100%, 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?
Clearly states action 'Cancel a subscription by id.' Differentiates by mentioning ownership enforcement and effect on historical events via recent_alerts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states ownership constraint ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'). Does not explicitly list when not to use, but context with sibling tools implies alternatives. Provides context about deactivation vs deletion.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The various `ask_pipeworx*` variants are differentiated by mode (single vs grounded vs research). `get_nav_history` vs `latest_nav` serve different query granularities. Administrative tools like `remember`/`recall`/`forget` are clearly separate. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention and generally use `verb_noun` order (e.g., `ask_pipeworx`, `search_schemes`, `validate_claim`). A few exceptions like `entity_profile` (noun_verb) exist, but the pattern is mostly predictable.
At 34 tools, the server is quite large, including many specialized tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, administrative memory/subscription tools) that could arguably be split into separate servers. The number feels slightly excessive for a coherent, focused server.
The tool set covers an extraordinarily wide range of domains: company financials, SEC filings, FDA drugs, economic data, mutual funds, real estate, prediction markets, npm dependencies, AI visibility, and more. It also includes memory, subscription, and feedback mechanisms. There are no obvious gaps for the domains addressed.