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?
The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, deactivation vs deletion, and availability of historical events via recent_alerts. This aligns with and augments the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint, readOnlyHint).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) with no redundant information. It front-loads the main action and efficiently covers ownership, mode of action, and data persistence.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the action, ownership constraint, side effects, and references to related tools (recent_alerts). It is complete and actionable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by linking the 'id' parameter to the 'subscribe' tool, providing context that the schema alone does not offer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'subscription by id', distinguishing it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'. It also adds specifics about ownership and data behavior.
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 provides clear context by stating ownership enforcement ('only cancel your own subscriptions') and the effect on data (deactivated, not deleted). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance.
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.