list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds return field details and the include_inactive parameter, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
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 with no wasted words: first states purpose and return fields, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. Description covers purpose, return fields, and usage entirely. Annotations cover safety. Complete for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single boolean parameter is well-described in the schema. Description does not add new parameter insights.
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 it lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifies returned fields (id, type, etc.), and is distinct from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: to review monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel. This guides the agent on appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve overlapping purposes (multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several entity tools, multiple Polymarket edge tools), and while descriptions are detailed, an agent would struggle to quickly select the correct tool without careful reading.
Naming conventions are mixed: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, extract_text), others use noun_phrase (ai_visibility_check, bet_research, entity_profile), and no clear pattern dominates.
32 tools is above the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the broad domain of data query, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions somewhat justifies the count, it still feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation.
The tool set covers most operations for its domain: data query (with multiple depth levels), memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and utilities like OCR and dependency scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct modify operation), but overall it's fairly complete.