Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Nobel MCP — wraps the Nobel Prize API v2 (free, no auth)

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
pipeworx-io/mcp-nobel
GitHub Stars
0

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.2/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.

Server CoherenceC
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions clarifying their roles. However, some overlap exists between Polymarket-related tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage) and company-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities), but descriptions help distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use mixed patterns: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, search_laureates), others noun_verb (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback) or descriptive phrases. Inconsistent conventions like ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_trending make naming unpredictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 21 tools, the count is borderline. It covers many areas (data retrieval, betting, Nobel prizes, memory, site indexing) but feels heavy for a server that could be split into focused sub-servers. Some tools seem peripheral to the core purpose.

Completeness2/5

The domain is unclear, mixing diverse capabilities. There are significant gaps: no write/update operations except memory, no support for domains like weather or sports beyond basic queries, and missing lifecycle coverage for entities (e.g., no update/delete for business data). The set feels like a collection of utilities rather than a coherent surface.

Available Tools

21 tools
ai_visibility_checkA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model. Default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free); pass _apiKey to also probe Anthropic (BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly for those calls). Returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view. Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesThe thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. "Pipeworx", "OpenInvoice", "Acme Corp pricing".
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if "anthropic" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.
contextNoOptional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. "Boston restaurant", "B2B SaaS"). Helps disambiguate common names.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: default model behavior, API key requirement for Anthropic, and the return structure with scores, confidence, signals, and raw responses. This goes beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three succinct sentences that front-load the purpose, explain key configuration, and list use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return values (per-model and combined view). It covers authentication, default behavior, and use cases. For a probe tool with annotations, this is complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds functional context: explaining the default model, the role of '_apiKey', and the helpfulness of 'context' for disambiguation. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: probing LLMs for knowledge about a business/brand/topic and scoring visibility per model. It uses specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and resources ('LLMs', 'visibility'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on visibility scoring across multiple models.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit usage context: default free model, optional Anthropic via BYO key, use cases like AI-marketing audits and pre-launch checks. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

ask_pipeworxA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for questions about current or historical data: SEC filings, FDA drug data, FRED/BLS economic statistics, government records, USPTO patents, ATTOM real estate, weather, clinical trials, news, stocks, crypto, sports, academic papers, or anything requiring authoritative structured data with citations. Routes the question to the right one of 2,789 tools across 604 verified sources, fills arguments, returns the structured answer with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. Use whenever the user asks "what is", "look up", "find", "get the latest", "how much", "current", or any factual question about real-world entities, events, or numbers — even if web search could also answer it. Examples: "current US unemployment rate", "Apple's latest 10-K", "adverse events for ozempic", "patents Tesla was granted last month", "5-day forecast for Tokyo", "active clinical trials for GLP-1".

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionYesYour question or request in natural language
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that Pipeworx automatically selects tools and fills arguments, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention limitations like response time, data source availability, error handling, or authentication requirements. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is efficiently structured: it opens with the core functionality, explains the automation benefit, and provides three diverse examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The length is appropriate for explaining this type of meta-tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (automated tool selection) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well to explain the high-level behavior and provide examples. However, it could better address potential limitations or edge cases. The absence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but more behavioral context would help.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'question' parameter. The description adds context by emphasizing 'plain English' and 'natural language,' and provides concrete examples that illustrate appropriate question formats. This enhances understanding beyond the basic schema description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best available data source.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('answer'), and mechanism ('Pipeworx picks the right tool, fills the arguments'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing natural language processing rather than structured queries.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'No need to browse tools or learn schemas — just describe what you need.' It contrasts with alternatives by suggesting this is for users who want to avoid manual tool selection. The examples further clarify appropriate use cases.

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

bet_researchA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call. Pass a market slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), a polymarket.com URL, or a question text. The tool resolves the market, classifies the bet (crypto price / Fed rate / geopolitical / sports / corporate / drug approval / election / other), fans out to the right packs (e.g. crypto+fred+gdelt for a BTC bet, fred+bls for a Fed bet, gdelt+acled+comtrade for Strait of Hormuz), and returns an evidence packet plus a simple market-vs-model comparison so the caller can see where the implied probability disagrees with the data. Use for "should I bet on X?", "what does the data say about this Polymarket market?", or "is there edge in this bet?". This is the core demo product — agents that get bet-relevant context here convert better than ones that have to discover the packs themselves.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoquick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out. Default thorough.
marketYesPolymarket slug ("will-bitcoin-hit-150k-by-june-30-2026"), full URL ("https://polymarket.com/event/..."), or question text ("Will Bitcoin hit $150k by June 30?")
include_rawNoDefault false. When false (recommended), FRED/FDA/GDELT/Federal-Register evidence is summarized to the few fields agents actually use — keeps responses under ~20KB. Pass true to get full upstream payloads (50KB-500KB) when you need to recompute deltas, cite specific observations, or post-process.
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that it resolves the market, classifies the bet, fans out to appropriate packs, and returns an evidence packet with a market-vs-model comparison. This adds significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is detailed but somewhat long. It front-loads the main purpose and provides all necessary information. Could be more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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 exactly what is returned (evidence packet + market-vs-model comparison) and the process (classification, fan-out). It is complete for a tool that researches Polymarket bets.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context: 'market' can be slug, URL, or question text; 'depth' quick vs thorough with default. This reinforces and slightly enriches the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Research' and the resource 'Polymarket bet', and explains how it pulls Pipeworx data. It distinguishes from siblings by being specifically for Polymarket betting research, not general data queries.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit use cases like 'should I bet on X?', 'what does the data say?' and positions itself as the core demo product. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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

compare_entitiesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Compare 2–5 companies (or drugs) side by side in one call. Use when a user says "compare X and Y", "X vs Y", "how do X, Y, Z stack up", "which is bigger", or wants tables/rankings of revenue / net income / cash / debt across companies — or adverse events / approvals / trials across drugs. type="company": pulls revenue, net income, cash, long-term debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL for tickers like AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL. type="drug": pulls adverse-event report counts (FAERS), FDA approval counts, active trial counts. Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs. Replaces 8–15 sequential agent calls.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valuesYesFor company: 2–5 tickers/CIKs (e.g., ["AAPL","MSFT"]). For drug: 2–5 names (e.g., ["ozempic","mounjaro"]).
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return type (paired data + pipeworx:// resource URIs) and per-type metrics, but does not mention safety (read-only? destructive?), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavioral traits are partially clear but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences cover the core purpose and key detail. The first sentence is a strong verb-first statement of purpose. Minor improvement could be structuring the type-specific returns more clearly, but overall it's concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (paired data, resource URIs). It also notes efficiency benefit (replaces 8–15 calls). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, validation rules, or max/min entity count beyond schema. For a tool with moderate complexity, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described. The description adds meaning beyond schema by detailing what each type returns (e.g., 'revenue, net income, cash, long-term debt' for company). This enriches the agent's understanding of the parameter values.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Compare 2–5 entities side by side in one call' with specific metrics per type (company: revenue, net income, etc.; drug: adverse-event count, FDA approval count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or resolve_entity, which are for different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains the use case: comparing 2-5 entities in one call to replace 8-15 sequential calls. It implies efficiency benefits but doesn't explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for single entity queries) or alternatives.

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

discover_toolsA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Find tools by describing the data or task. Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: SEC filings, financials, revenue, profit, FDA drugs, adverse events, FRED economic data, Census demographics, BLS jobs/unemployment/inflation, ATTOM real estate, ClinicalTrials, USPTO patents, weather, news, crypto, stocks. Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names + descriptions. Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of tools to return (default 20, max 50)
queryYesNatural language description of what you want to do (e.g., "analyze housing market trends", "look up FDA drug approvals", "find trade data between countries")
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search functionality and return format (tools with names and descriptions), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or performance characteristics. It adequately covers basic behavior but misses advanced operational context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first explains the core functionality, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the purpose, usage context, and basic return format. However, it could benefit from mentioning what happens when no tools match or if there are authentication requirements.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'describing what you need' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search', 'returns') and resources ('Pipeworx tool catalog', 'most relevant tools with names and descriptions'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tool discovery rather than prize or laureate searches, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This clearly indicates the primary use case and context, offering strong direction for agent decision-making.

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

entity_profileA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Get everything about a company in one call. Use when a user asks "tell me about X", "give me a profile of Acme", "what do you know about Apple", "research Microsoft", "brief me on Tesla", or you'd otherwise need to call 10+ pack tools across SEC EDGAR, SEC XBRL, USPTO, news, and GLEIF. Returns recent SEC filings, latest revenue/net income/cash position fundamentals, USPTO patents matched by assignee, recent news mentions, and the LEI (legal entity identifier) — all with pipeworx:// citation URIs. Pass a ticker like "AAPL" or zero-padded CIK like "0000320193".

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today; person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the one-call bundling, returns pipeworx:// citation URIs, and explains why usa_recipient_profile is separate. Lacks mention of authentication or read-only nature, but still strong.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details, then alternative. Every sentence adds value, no waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Complex multi-source tool with no output schema. Description lists all sources, input constraints, and alternatives. Could mention pagination or limits, but covers essentials well.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds meaning by explaining type supports only 'company', value can be ticker or CIK, and names not supported (recommends resolve_entity). This goes beyond schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states it returns a full profile of an entity across multiple Pipeworx packs, listing specific data sources (SEC, XBRL, patents, news, LEI) and distinguishing from sibling usa_recipient_profile. It also notes it replaces 10-15 sequential calls.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use (for comprehensive entity profile) and when not to (use usa_recipient_profile for federal contracts because it's too slow to bundle). Also implies using resolve_entity for name resolution.

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

forgetC
DestructiveIdempotent
Inspect

Delete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key to delete
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a memory, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, error handling for non-existent keys, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource ('stored memory'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like permanence, permissions, or error handling, nor does it explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation message, null return). Given the complexity of a delete operation, more context is needed for safe use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'key' fully documented in the schema as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond restating this parameter's purpose, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a stored memory by key'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'remember' which likely handle memory retrieval/creation, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's unique role in the memory management system.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing memory key), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'recall' (likely for retrieval) or 'remember' (likely for creation). The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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

generate_llms_txtA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL so AI crawlers (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) can index the site cleanly. Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format. Output is a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. Useful for: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL of the site to summarize, e.g. "https://example.com" or a specific landing page.
max_linksNoMaximum number of link entries to include (default 25, max 50).
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown format. This goes beyond annotations, though it could optionally note error handling for unreachable URLs.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences plus a bullet point list of use cases. Every sentence adds value: first states the main action and benefit, second details the process, third lists use cases. No superfluous words, perfectly front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers input purpose, process steps, output format, and use cases. Annotations align, and no additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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 does not add new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely reinforces the context. No extra value is provided for the parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'generate', identifies the exact resource 'llms.txt file', and targets 'any URL'. It clearly distinguishes itself by naming the output format and listing concrete use cases, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description includes a 'Useful for' section listing three clear scenarios (client indexing, personal project drafting, competitor auditing). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare with sibling tools, the provided contexts are enough for a typical agent to decide applicability.

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

get_prizes_by_yearA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Get all Nobel Prizes awarded in a specific year, optionally filtered by category (e.g., "Chemistry", "Peace"). Returns laureate names, categories, and citations.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYesYear to look up (e.g., 2023). Must be 1901 or later.
categoryNoNobel Prize category: phy (Physics), che (Chemistry), med (Medicine), lit (Literature), pea (Peace), eco (Economics)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
yearYesThe year queried
countYesNumber of prizes awarded that year
prizesYesList of Nobel Prizes awarded in the year
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the basic functionality but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional parameter. There is zero wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details like response format or error conditions. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('year' and 'category') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional filtering by category but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get all Nobel Prizes'), resource ('Nobel Prizes'), and scope ('awarded in a specific year, optionally filtered by category'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_laureates' by focusing on prizes rather than laureates.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('awarded in a specific year, optionally filtered by category'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling tool 'search_laureates' as an alternative for different queries.

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

pipeworx_feedbackAInspect

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesbug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageYesYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the rate limit and a content rule, but does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, storage), authentication needs, or any side effects. The information is adequate but not thorough.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds usage guidelines and limitations. Front-loaded and compact.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema is absent, but for a feedback tool the return value is likely implicit. The description covers usage, constraints (rate limit, content rule), and purpose. It misses stating what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation), but is otherwise sufficient for a simple feedback function.

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

Parameters3/5

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 does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. It reinforces the message parameter's intent but does not compensate for any gaps.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Send feedback' and the resource 'Pipeworx team'. It enumerates specific use cases (bug reports, feature requests, missing data, praise) and adds a guideline about what not to include. This distinguishes it from siblings which are data retrieval or processing tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: for bug reports, feature requests, missing data, or praise. It also provides a behavioral constraint ('do not include the end-user's prompt verbatim') and a rate limit. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools or state when to avoid this tool.

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

polymarket_arbitrageA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket by checking for monotonicity violations across related markets. TWO MODES: (1) event — pass a single Polymarket event slug; walks that event's child markets and checks ordering within it. (2) topic — pass a topic / seed question (e.g. "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal"); the tool searches across separate events for related markets, groups them, then checks monotonicity. Cross-event mode catches the cases where Polymarket lists each cutoff as its own event ("…by May 31" is event A, "…by Jun 30" is event B — single-event mode misses the May≤June rule). Returns ranked opportunities with suggested trade direction + reasoning.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventNoSingle-event mode: Polymarket event slug (e.g. "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k") or full URL.
topicNoCross-event mode: a topic or seed question. Tool searches Polymarket for related markets across separate events and checks monotonicity across them. E.g. "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal".
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral detail on search strategy across events and grouping logic, without contradicting annotations. No mention of rate limits or side effects, but these are not expected for a read-only tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is well-organized with clear separation of modes and examples. Slightly wordy but informative; no redundant sentences.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return value (ranked opportunities with reasoning). Parameters fully covered. Complexity of cross-event search is addressed with an example, making it self-contained.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining each parameter's role (event mode vs topic mode) with concrete examples, going beyond schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states verb (find arbitrage opportunities) and resource (Polymarket markets via monotonicity violations). Distinguishes two modes (event and topic), providing specific use cases. No ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly describes when to use each mode with an example of cross-event mode catching cases single-event mode misses. Does not list negative cases or alternatives, 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.

polymarket_edgesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Scan the highest-volume Polymarket markets and return the ones where Pipeworx data disagrees most with the market price. V1 covers crypto-price bets (lognormal model from FRED + live coinpaprika price): scans top markets, groups by asset, fetches each asset's price history ONCE, computes model probability per market, ranks by |edge|. Returns top N ranked by edge magnitude with suggested trade direction. Built for the "what should I bet on today" question — agents/users discover opportunities without paging through hundreds of markets by hand.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoTop N edges to return after ranking. Default 10, max 25.
windowNoPolymarket volume window to filter markets. Default 1wk.
min_kellyNoMinimum half-Kelly fraction (as decimal, e.g. 0.005 = 0.5% of bankroll) to include single-leg opportunities. Default 0 (no filter). Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly even if the edge is large.
min_edge_ppNoMinimum |edge| in percentage points to include (default 0.5). Edge is evaluated NET of slippage.
slippage_ppNoAssumed execution slippage in percentage points per leg (default 0.3). Subtracted from raw |edge| before ranking and Kelly sizing. Polymarket has zero trading fees as of 2024 but bid/ask + thin depth typically eats 20-50bp per trade. Bump for very thin partitions; drop to 0 if you have a smarter fill model.
category_filterNoComma-separated list to restrict the output: "model_driven" (crypto_price + news_momentum), "structural_arbitrage" (partition_overround), "concentrated_longshot". Combine like "model_driven,structural_arbitrage". Default: all.
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by detailing the internal process: scanning top markets, grouping by asset, fetching price history once, computing model probability, ranking by edge, and returning top N with suggested direction. It also mentions the model (lognormal from FRED + live coinpaprika) and version (V1). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, method, and output. It is longer but every sentence contributes meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the main action and then provides technical details. Could be slightly shorter, but overall well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It states 'Returns top N ranked by edge magnitude with suggested trade direction' but lacks specifics on output fields (e.g., market name, asset, edge percentage, direction). Given the complexity of the data, more detail would be beneficial. Score reflects adequate but not comprehensive coverage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters described (limit, window, min_edge_pp). The description adds context on how these parameters are used in the ranking process, but does not substantially add meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already specify defaults and ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly specifies the tool scans high-volume Polymarket markets, identifies where Pipeworx model data disagrees with market prices, and returns top ranked edges with trade direction. It explicitly states the scope (crypto-price bets, lognormal model from FRED + coinpaprika) and the output (ranked by edge magnitude). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states the intended use: 'Built for the "what should I bet on today" question — agents/users discover opportunities without paging through hundreds of markets by hand.' It provides clear context for when to use, but does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling tools.

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

polymarket_kalshi_spreadA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. Kalshi and Polymarket frequently price the same event 2-25pp apart because the venues have different participant pools — that delta is a real arb signal. TWO MODES: (1) topic — pre-mapped macro shortcuts ("fed", "btc", "cpi", "gdp", "sp500", "recession", "next_pope") that auto-fetch the matching event on each venue. (2) explicit kalshi_event_ticker + polymarket_event_slug for custom pairings. Returns: each venue's leg-by-leg prices (in raw probability, 0-1), and where a leg from each side maps to the same outcome, the spread (Kalshi − Polymarket) in percentage points.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoPre-mapped: fed | btc | cpi | gdp | sp500 | recession | next_pope | next_uk_pm | next_israel_pm | 2028_president
kalshi_event_tickerNoExplicit Kalshi event ticker, e.g. "KXFED-26OCT". Overrides the topic-mapped Kalshi side.
polymarket_event_slugNoExplicit Polymarket event slug, e.g. "fed-decision-in-june-825". Overrides the topic-mapped Polymarket side.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviors. The description adds value by detailing the computation of spread, return of leg-by-leg prices, and the spread in percentage points. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections for modes and return values. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value, making it efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, cross-venue spread, three optional parameters), the description covers essential use cases and return structure. No output schema, but the description compensates by describing the output. Could include an example call or more detail on output format, but sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters. The description further explains the two operating modes and how parameters interact (e.g., explicit tickers override topic-mapped ones), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket, a specific resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' by focusing on this specific pair. The two modes (topic and explicit) are clearly outlined.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains two modes for use: topic shortcuts for common events and explicit tickers for custom pairings. It provides context for when each is appropriate but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, though it does differentiate from similar tools.

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

recallA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument). Use to look up context the agent stored earlier — the user's target ticker, an address, prior research notes — without re-deriving it from scratch. Scoped to your identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID). Pair with remember to save, forget to delete.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoMemory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys)
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it retrieves or lists memories, works across sessions, and requires a key for retrieval (omit for listing). However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., if key doesn't exist), return format, or performance limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence, followed by a concise usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful for an agent. Since no output schema exists, some gap remains, but it's adequate for this simple tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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 meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that omitting the key lists all memories, and ties the parameter to retrieving context from earlier sessions. This enhances understanding of the parameter's role, justifying a score above baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'list') and resources ('previously stored memory', 'all stored memories'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete). It explicitly mentions retrieving context saved earlier in sessions.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Retrieve a previously stored memory by key, or list all stored memories (omit key).' It also specifies context: 'Use this to retrieve context you saved earlier in the session or in previous sessions,' clearly indicating its role versus alternatives like 'remember' for storage.

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

recent_changesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

What's new with a company in the last N days/months? Use when a user asks "what's happening with X?", "any updates on Y?", "what changed recently at Acme?", "brief me on what happened with Microsoft this quarter", "news on Apple this month", or you're monitoring for changes. Fans out to SEC EDGAR (recent filings), GDELT (news mentions in window), and USPTO (patents granted) in parallel. since accepts ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative shorthand ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Returns structured changes + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today.
sinceYesWindow start — ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193").
Behavior4/5

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

Describes the parallel fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT, USPTO for company type. Mentions return format (structured changes + count + URIs). Without annotations, this provides substantial behavioral insight, though lacks detail on rate limits or error handling.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, parameter details, return format, and usage guidance. No wasted words; information is efficiently packed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (3 parameters, fan-out logic), the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and use cases thoroughly. It provides enough context for an agent to select and use this tool effectively.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value: clarifies 'since' accepts ISO dates and relative strings (e.g., '7d', '30d'), specifies 'value' can be ticker or CIK, and confirms 'type' only supports 'company'. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'What's new about an entity since a given point in time' and specifies the fan-out behavior for company type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like entity_profile (current state) and compare_entities (comparison), making its unique purpose evident.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly suggests use cases: 'brief me on what happened with X' or change-monitoring workflows. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough given sibling tools.

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

rememberA
Idempotent
Inspect

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains persistence differences (authenticated vs. anonymous sessions with 24-hour limit) and the tool's purpose for cross-call context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like storage capacity or error conditions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about persistence. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and its persistence behavior. However, it doesn't explain what happens on success/failure or return values, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Store') and resource ('key-value pair in your session memory'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique storage function compared to tools like 'recall' (likely retrieval) and 'forget' (likely deletion).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools like 'recall' or 'forget'.

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

resolve_entityA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Look up the canonical/official identifier for a company or drug. Use when a user mentions a name and you need the CIK (for SEC), ticker (for stock data), RxCUI (for FDA), or LEI — the ID systems that other tools require as input. Examples: "Apple" → AAPL / CIK 0000320193, "Ozempic" → RxCUI 1991306 + ingredient + brand. Returns IDs plus pipeworx:// citation URIs. Use this BEFORE calling other tools that need official identifiers. Replaces 2–3 lookup calls.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valueYesFor company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., "ozempic", "metformin").
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the function (resolve to canonical IDs) and expected outputs (ticker, CIK, name, URIs), but does not mention idempotency, error handling, required permissions, or whether it modifies data. The version note ('v1') is mentioned but not explained.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, fitting in a single sentence with additional details about the version and examples. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the version information could be structured more clearly, and the list of outputs is inline rather than bulleted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality well: what it does, inputs, outputs, and that it replaces multiple calls. However, it lacks details on what happens when an entity is not found, the format of resource URIs, and any limitations or edge cases. Since there is no output schema, more information about the return structure would improve completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds examples of valid values (e.g., 'AAPL', '0000320193', 'Apple') and clarifies that only 'company' is supported in v1, which adds meaning beyond the schema's enum and description. This helps the agent understand parameter usage better than the schema alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool resolves an entity to canonical IDs across Pipeworx data sources in a single call. It specifies the supported entity type ('company') and the input formats (ticker, CIK, name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_laureates by focusing on entity resolution and explicitly mentions it replaces multiple lookup calls.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool should be used for entity resolution when you have a ticker, CIK, or company name, and mentions it replaces 2-3 lookup calls, suggesting it is more efficient. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools like ask_pipeworx that might also perform lookups.

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

scan_competitor_ai_presenceA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side. Probes each entity (your brand + N competitors) with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized. Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: "does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?". Returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key — only if "anthropic" is in models. Passed to api.anthropic.com per probe.
contextNoOptional shared context applied to every probe (e.g. "B2B SaaS", "Boston restaurant"). Disambiguates common names.
entitiesYesArray of 2-8 entities to compare (brand/business/product names). First entry treated as the "subject" for narrative; rest are competitors.
Behavior4/5

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

Describes the internal probing with ai_visibility_check, ranking by score, and output metrics (score, confidence, signal density). Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior; description adds process and output details.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by method, use case, and output. No redundant or overly verbose content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Fairly complete: explains purpose, methodology, input (entities as subject + competitors), output structure. Lacks explicit ordering direction (descending by score) and error handling, but sufficient for a wrapper tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions. Description adds context that the first entity is the subject and explains the models parameter options, providing meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side,' specifying the action, resource, and method. Differentiates from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by being a comparative, multi-entity wrapper tool with ranking.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly positions for competitive AI-marketing audits with an example question. Does not state when not to use or direct alternatives, 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.

search_laureatesC
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Search Nobel Prize laureates by name and/or category (e.g., "Physics", "Medicine", "Literature"). Returns biography, prizes won, and award motivation.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFull or partial name of the laureate (e.g., "Einstein", "Marie Curie")
categoryNoNobel Prize category: phy (Physics), che (Chemistry), med (Medicine), lit (Literature), pea (Peace), eco (Economics)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
countYesTotal number of laureates matching the search
laureatesYesList of Nobel Prize laureates
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'biography, prizes won, and motivation,' which adds some context about output content. However, it lacks details on critical behaviors like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or whether searches are case-sensitive/fuzzy. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Search Nobel Prize laureates by name and/or prize category') and follows with output details. There's no wasted verbiage, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage from output).

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with two optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context on behavioral traits, error cases, or sibling tool differentiation. Without an output schema, the description's mention of return content ('biography, prizes won, and motivation') is helpful but not fully compensatory.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters (name and category) with descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it merely restates the parameters without providing extra context like format nuances or interaction effects. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Nobel Prize laureates by name and/or prize category.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('Nobel Prize laureates'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_prizes_by_year' (which appears to search by year rather than name/category), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the parameters (name and category) but doesn't explain scenarios where this search is preferred over the sibling 'get_prizes_by_year' or other potential methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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

validate_claimA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Fact-check, verify, validate, or confirm/refute a natural-language factual claim or statement against authoritative sources. Use when an agent needs to check whether something a user said is true ("Is it true that…?", "Was X really…?", "Verify the claim that…", "Validate this statement…"). v1 supports company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash position for public US companies) via SEC EDGAR + XBRL. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported), extracted structured form, actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and percent delta. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → numeric comparison).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses supported domain, data sources, return values, and version limitations. It does not mention destructive behavior or auth, but for a read-only fact-check tool this is adequate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise (3 sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it explains what it does, its limitations, return values, and value proposition.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'claim'. The description provides examples and context beyond the schema, helping the agent understand the expected input format.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool fact-checks natural-language claims, specifies the domain (company-financial claims for US public companies), and lists return values. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a specialized fact-checker.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description indicates when to use (fact-checking claims, especially company-financial) and mentions it replaces multiple agent calls, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.