Oeis

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b), cost implications for Anthropic (BYO key), and that results include per-model and combined views. No contradiction 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.

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

The description is concise at two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and result, followed by model details and use cases. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no enums, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter roles, usage scenarios, and return structure ('per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view'). No gaps remain.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual value beyond the schema: it explains the default model behavior for 'models' parameter, clarifies that '_apiKey' is only needed for Anthropic, and how 'context' helps disambiguate. This enhances semantics despite high schema coverage.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: probing LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scoring visibility from 0-100. It uses specific verbs ('probe', 'score') and 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.

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

The description provides explicit use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, the context signals and sibling list imply alternative tools for other scenarios, which is sufficient for an agent to infer typical usage.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about routing to 4,774 tools, returning structured answers with citation URIs, which goes beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the key instruction 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', every sentence adds value, and it is logically structured with usage, examples, and alternatives. No wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity and extensive sibling set, the description covers purpose, usage, output format, and alternatives comprehensively. It includes examples and explicit guidance, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the question parameter's flexibility (aliases) and giving contextual guidance on what kinds of questions to ask, with examples.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool routes questions to a vast array of tools and sources, returning structured answers with citation URIs. It provides specific examples and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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 explicitly instructs to prefer this over web search, lists appropriate use cases with examples, and specifies when to step up to alternative tools. It says 'START HERE for most questions' and 'Step up only when needed'.

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

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

Adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: hallucination-resistant, refuses when data doesn't directly answer, returns specific refusal reasons. Confirms read-only, non-destructive nature consistent with annotations. 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.

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

Well-structured, front-loaded with core purpose, then details, then usage guidance. Every sentence is informative. Slightly long but 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.

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

No output schema, but description fully covers return format: success fields (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null) and all refusal reasons. Also covers error cases. Comprehensive given tool complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters (all aliases for question). Description adds value by explaining they are natural language questions and how they are used (routing, argument filling). Slight redundancy with schema, but helpful context.

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's a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, with explicit description of behavior: extracts answer using only tool result, returns evidence or refusal. Distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by mentioning same routing but grounded extraction and extra cost.

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: when answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and agent must not invent facts. Provides alternative: prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups. Mentions cost difference.

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

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent). It details low-confidence short-circuits, closed market handling, wide-spread fallbacks, resolution-rule risk, parent event extraction, news fallback fields, and fan-out logic per category. It advises inspecting market_match_confidence before trusting analysis. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 quite long but well-structured with clear sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, etc.) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Some details are redundant or could be trimmed (e.g., listing all classifiers), but the structure aids readability. It earns its length due to tool complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, rich behavior, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: input formats, fan-out examples, response shapes, resolver contract, parent events, news fields, safety mechanisms, and resolution rules. No critical gaps are evident.

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%, but the description adds significant value: for 'market' it gives examples of slug, URL, and question text; for 'depth' it explains 'quick' vs 'thorough' with specific source counts; for 'include_raw' it explains the default behavior, size implications, and use cases. The description goes well beyond the schema definitions.

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 it researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data, with specific verbs ('Research', 'pull') and resources ('Pipeworx data', 'evidence packet'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the comprehensive research of a single bet, while siblings like 'polymarket_edges' or 'polymarket_arbitrage' are more specialized. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states use cases ('Use for "should I bet on X"...') and provides examples of what to pass (slug, URL, question text). It explains fan-outs by category, but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or compare to sibling tools that might be better suited for specific tasks. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral details: for company type, it pulls latest 10-K from SEC EDGAR/XBRL with correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years; for drug type, it pulls FAERS adverse events, FDA approvals, trial counts. It also states results are sorted by primary metric and returns paired data with citation URIs.

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 somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with practical example queries. Every sentence contributes useful information: triggers, data sources, sorting, benefits. It could be slightly tighter, but the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

Given the simple parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers inputs thoroughly and describes the output in sufficient detail (paired data + citation URIs). It even covers edge cases like off-calendar fiscal years. It provides a complete picture for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description enhances semantics by explaining data sources for each type (e.g., 'company' pulls from SEC EDGAR/XBRL, 'drug' pulls from FAERS) and giving examples of valid inputs (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names). It adds value beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs side-by-side comparisons of 2–5 entities (companies or drugs). It includes trigger phrases like 'compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'rank these companies', etc., and explicitly says to prefer this over sequential single-pack lookups, distinguishing it from sibling tools like entity_profile.

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 explicitly advises to always prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. It provides example queries and entity types, making it clear when to use. While it doesn't state when not to use, the context and sibling tools imply that for single entity lookups, entity_profile would be appropriate.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds account requirements, paid plan details for thorough depth, typical response time (15-60s), and behavior when topics aren't in the catalog (returns empty gaps[]). 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.

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured, front-loading critical account information and usage warnings. Every sentence serves a purpose, though slight verbosity prevents a perfect score.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully details the return format: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, and explicit gaps[]. It covers the tool's complexity (1242 sources, parallel decomposition) adequately.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining depth values concretely ('quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)') and clarifying that the question can be broad/multi-part.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs grounded multi-source research across 1242 structured data sources, decomposes questions into facets, and returns a findings packet. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by specifying it is not for single lookups or breaking news.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx', and account requirements including that 'depth:thorough needs a paid plan' while 'ask_pipeworx... works on every tier'.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly.' 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.

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

Description is a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose, provides usage guidance, lists example domains, and describes the return value — all without unnecessary words.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (top-N tools with schemas), and even lists many domains. It is self-contained for agent decision-making.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining aliases for the query parameter (task, q, search, description) and specifying default/max for limit. It also includes two examples in the schema, reinforcing usage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It differentiates itself from siblings by being a meta-tool for browsing available tools across many domains, and explicitly lists supported domains.

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 advises: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides strong usage context and distinguishes when to use it versus directly invoking a specific tool.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotent annotations, the description details the multi-source fan-out behavior, the specific data returned (CIK, filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents with sunset note, news fallback, LEI), and the input constraint of requiring ticker or CIK. 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.

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

The description is detailed and front-loaded with example queries, but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity. It could be slightly more concise, but the density is justified by the need to explain multiple data sources and fallbacks.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description provides complete context: inputs, outputs, sources, limitations (no names, USPTO sunset), and fallback behavior. An agent has all necessary information to decide when and how to use this 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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'AAPL' or '0000320193') and reinforcing the name constraint, but does not introduce new semantic information beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a full cross-source profile for US public companies, using specific verbs like 'profile' and 'brief me on'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_entity and compare_entities by explicitly saying to prefer this over chaining single-pack lookups.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, stating 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack lookups' for holistic views, and instructs to use resolve_entity first if only a name is available. It also notes that person/place types are coming soon.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; description adds context about clearing sensitive data, which is consistent and slightly enhances transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, no wasted words.

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

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

For a simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and related tools adequately.

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 description reiterates 'by key' without adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete'.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory by key', clearly distinguishing from siblings 'remember' and 'recall'.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and pairs with related tools, but lacks explicit 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.

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' This explains the process and output format beyond annotations.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage scenarios. Every sentence is informative, though a minor reduction in length is possible. Well-structured 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'). It covers input, process, output, and usage scenarios. For a tool with 2 simple parameters, the description is fully sufficient.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds general context (extracting title/description/key links) but does not provide specific semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool generates an llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb ('generate'), resource ('llms.txt file'), and scope ('for any URL'). It is distinct from all listed sibling tools, which are unrelated.

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 explicit usage scenarios: '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.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear and no sibling tool offers similar functionality.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. 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.

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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

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

Given the simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is fully adequate: it explains what it does, what input it takes, and what output it returns.

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 schema already describes the parameter. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of valid inputs (with/without prefix, zero-padding), which helps the agent understand flexible input formats.

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 it fetches a single OEIS integer sequence by A-number, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_sequence' by focusing on known sequences.

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

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

The description implies use for known sequences and provides input format examples. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling context suggests 'search_sequence' for unknown sequences. Clear enough for most agents.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the return fields and active-only default, but does not extend behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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. The main purpose is first, followed by return fields and usage context. Highly 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?

Given the simple schema (one optional boolean), thorough annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete – it covers purpose, return format, and when to use it.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the only parameter (include_inactive). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), and it distinguishes the purpose from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by focusing on reading/listening.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool. Lacks explicit 'when not to use,' but the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, idempotent, etc.), but the description fully compensates by disclosing rate limits, free usage, daily digest reading, and the instruction to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs. 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.

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

The description is a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, categories, usage scenarios, constraints (rate limits, quota), and input formatting. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the enum values (bug, feature, etc.) and providing usage tips for the message field (1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), which is beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: sending feedback about bugs, features, data gaps, or praise. It succinctly defines each category and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or bet_research, which serve different functions.

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 explicit scenarios for when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and includes constraints like rate limits and guidance on what not to include (end-user prompts). It lacks explicit 'do not use' alternatives but is otherwise very clear.

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

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, caching details (5min-1h). Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so 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?

The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, but the description adequately explains return values (top tools, top packs, volume) and caching. Given the simplicity, this is complete enough.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the window parameter. The description enhances it by explaining the effect of shorter vs longer windows (hot vs steady-state), adding semantic value.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns trending data (top tools, top packs, call volume) from Pipeworx, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'discover_tools' by focusing on real-time agent activity.

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 three explicit use cases (discovering hot data, confirming canonical choice, aligning use case). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the given context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses internal checks (monotonicity, partition-sum, semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check against CLOB depth) and edge cases like skipped_low_similarity and placeholders_filtered. No contradiction 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.

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections and examples, but it is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, but a more concise version could improve scannability without losing detail.

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?

Given the complexity and lack of output schema, the description fully explains return values (opportunities[], partition_check, fill_check) and important context (realizable edge ≤ 0 means do not trade, thin legs, placeholder filtering).

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%, but the description adds value by explaining event mode accepts slugs or full URLs, topic mode uses a seed question to search related events, and distinguishes the behavior of each parameter mode.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It specifies the resource (Polymarket) and the verb (Find), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call with no args for trending scan, pass event for a specific market (recommended), or pass topic for cross-event scanning. It contrasts modes and suggests using polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, giving clear alternatives.

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

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

The description extensively details behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains caching (1h at KV level), model families, edge calculation (net of slippage), Kelly fractions, diagnostics for empty segments, and tradeable-edge knobs. It even addresses why Fed candidates are excluded from ranking. All annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent and the description adds substantial context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It then progresses through model families, tradeable-edge knobs, and response structure. While comprehensive, it is somewhat verbose; a more concise summary might improve quick scanning. However, every paragraph adds value, justifying the length.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, multiple model families), the description is remarkably complete. It covers response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), explains why segments may be empty, details edge metrics, and provides filtering knobs. It compensates for the lack of output schema with thorough behavioral and output descriptions.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema fields. For example, it explains the purpose of min_kelly ('Skips opportunities that are too small to bet sensibly'), the rationale behind max_spread_pp, and the interaction of min_partition_leg_kelly with partition arbs. This goes far beyond basic semantics, providing actionable guidance.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It specifies the target use case ('what should I bet on today') and emphasizes discovery without paging. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_kalshi_spread, which weakens the score slightly.

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

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

The description implies usage for discovering betting opportunities with model-driven, structural arbitrage, or concentrated longshot signals. It provides context on when the tool is appropriate (e.g., Fed bets are excluded due to data limitations) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparisons to alternatives. The usage is clear by implication but not formalized.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds crucial behavior: snapshot-based (daily closes, not intraday), 60-day TTL, response structure with tracked/expired/snapshot_dates, and limits. No contradiction 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.

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, response details, limits. It is dense but not verbose, earning its length.

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?

No output schema, so the description fully explains the return values (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and their fields. It also covers data source, limits, and computation details. Complete for a tool with two optional parameters.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description repeats and elaborates slightly (defaults, max for days, family for window), but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific purpose: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes from sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series analysis rather than raw edges.

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: use when needing to know edge persistence and decay over time, with a motivating example (fresh vs. old wide edge). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling set implies differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it 'walks the ladder', returns verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warns about forced directional risk. No contradiction 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.

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS). Every sentence is informative, but the length (~200 words) is somewhat dense; could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description exhaustively lists return fields for both modes and explains their meaning (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, verdict, capture_ratio, forced_directional_risk). It covers edge cases (thin legs, partial fills) and provides operational context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter behavior in context: meaning of 'side' in single-market vs basket, default values, and interpretation of 'size_usd' as settlement notional. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, with specific return fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by explicitly recommending use before acting on arb signals.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains when not to rely on theoretical overround and warns about partial basket fills causing directional risk.

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

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

The description provides extensive behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explains compatibility_warning conditions, temporal alignment, skipped cross types, and the real-world rarity of tradeable spreads. No contradiction 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.

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

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core function, but is relatively long. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' repeats the earlier warning). Overall well-structured for the complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the response structure (leg-by-leg prices, matched spreads, safety fields) and covers edge cases (compatibility_warning, temporal alignment, skipped cross types). It is complete for a complex cross-venue spread 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the two modes, how topic auto-maps, and how explicit tickers override. It also lists all topic enum values and provides context on their semantics.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool calculates cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It details two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and what the response contains (raw probabilities and spreads). This distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 explains when to use topic mode vs explicit mode and provides the list of topic shortcuts. It warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning, indicating that pre-mapped does not guarantee tradeability. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for similar tasks.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds the list-all-keys behavior when key is omitted, but does not reveal additional traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, all essential. Front-loaded with purpose. No redundant or missing information.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers operation modes, scoping, and pairing with sibling tools. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter ('key') with full schema coverage. Description adds meaning for omitting the key (list all), but schema already describes it. No additional depth needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('value previously saved via remember'), and distinguishes between retrieving a specific key and listing all keys. It differentiates from siblings remember and forget.

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?

Describes when to use: 'look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' Also mentions scoping. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but purpose is clear enough.

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

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

The description states that setting mark_read:true flags events as read, mutating state. This contradicts the readOnlyHint:true annotation, which implies no modifications. Additionally, mark_read may break idempotentHint:true, as repeated calls with mark_read change results. This is a serious 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?

The description is concise, with four sentences front-loading the purpose and return fields. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is logical: purpose, return content, filtering options, and additional notes.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return fields, parameter behaviors, and even provides an alternative access method. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds useful behavioral context for parameters: it explains the type filter with an example ('sec_8k'), clarifies that 'since' is an ISO timestamp, and describes the effect of mark_read and unread_only. It also mentions a default limit of 50 and that mark_read defaults to false.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns the most recent alerts with source, citation_uri, and raw event payload. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or subscribe by focusing on reading alerts.

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 explains when to use filters (type, since) and the mark_read parameter, and notes that polling works fine. It also provides an alternative access method (registry URL) for scripts/dashboards, giving clear usage guidance.

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

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

Discloses fan-out logic to multiple sources (SEC, GDELT→GNews, USPTO), fallback behavior, soft-fail for USPTO, and return structure (grouped changes, total count, citation URIs). Adds value beyond annotations which only indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive.

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?

Packed with useful information but slightly long. Structured well with examples, functionality, sources, parameter details, and alternative tool reference. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Thoroughly covers all aspects: purpose, sources, fallback, parameter formats, and return structure. No output schema, so description compensates well.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains type enum restriction to 'company', gives relative shorthand examples for 'since' (e.g., '30d'), and clarifies value accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK.

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?

Description starts with clear example queries and explicitly states 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call.' It distinguishes from sibling entity_profile by specifying when to use that instead.

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?

Provides explicit context with example queries and alternative tool (entity_profile). However, it does not exhaustively exclude all sibling tools like recent_alerts.

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

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses scoping ('scoped by your identifier') and persistence details ('authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions for 24 hours'), which are critical for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance, third gives examples, and fourth explains behavior. No superfluous sentences.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, persistence, and linkage to sibling tools, making it fully informative for an 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions including examples. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the key-value storage concept, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly defines the verb ('save') and resource ('data'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall and forget by stating it is for storing data for later reuse across conversations or sessions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and mentions alternatives ('pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete'), making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally, replacing 2-3 manual lookups. 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.

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

The description is front-loaded with examples and structured with bullet points for supported types. It is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but remains clear.

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?

The description covers purpose, supported types, return values, internal behavior, and usage context. Despite lacking an output schema, it explains what each call returns sufficiently for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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, baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning by detailing return values for each type (e.g., for company: ticker + CIK + company_name) and explaining input acceptance (e.g., ticker, CIK, name for company). This goes well beyond the basic schema.

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 explicitly states it resolves user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers, provides concrete examples ('What's the ticker for…'), and lists supported types (company, drug). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on name-to-ID resolution.

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 advises 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' offering explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, 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.

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density, and treats first entry as subject for narrative. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so description complements them without 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, but rich annotations, the description explains the process (probes with ai_visibility_check), the output (ranked list with metrics), and special behavior (first entity as subject). It omits error cases or edge conditions, but these are not critical for typical use.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic for the 'entities' parameter by noting 'First entry treated as the subject for narrative; rest are competitors,' which is not in the schema description. This adds meaningful guidance.

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 explicitly states 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' and explains it ranks by score, surface most/least recognized. It clearly distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic) by specifying it uses ai_visibility_check per entity and ranks results.

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 a concrete use case and context: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?' It implies when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond indirectly referencing ai_visibility_check for single probes.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and failures are reported in sources_failed. This fully prepares the agent for the tool's behavior.

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 comprehensive and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing metrics, usage, and caveats. Although slightly verbose, every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the return fields (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and explaining partial failure behavior. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, ecosystem limitation, and edge cases, making it complete for an 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The tool description does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., package name format, version defaulting). Therefore, the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 defines the tool as a composite check for npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia, answering questions about safety, popularity, and size. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the npm ecosystem and noting alternatives for other ecosystems.

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 explicitly states when to use: when an agent asks about package safety, popularity, or size. It also warns that it only covers npm in v1, implicitly guiding agents away from non-npm packages. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for other ecosystems.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral details: returns up to 10 results per page, pagination via start, and fields like A-number, name, terms, keywords, author, offset.

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?

Five sentences, well-structured with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: search capability, examples, return fields, pagination. No wasted words.

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

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

With full schema coverage, annotations, and clear description, the tool is fully specified for an agent to use correctly. All necessary information is present: search types, return format, pagination.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds examples for query types and clarifies pagination (10 per page), but does not add significant new semantics beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool searches the OEIS for integer sequences, with specific examples (comma-separated integers, A-number, free-text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sequence' by emphasizing search and multiple match types.

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 explicitly covers when to use the tool (identify sequences from terms, lookup by A-number, keyword search) and how to paginate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, 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.

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds behavioral details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap, truncation with flagging. No contradiction 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.

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

Concise yet comprehensive. Two sentences front-load core purpose and usage; additional sentences add technical specifics without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format (passages with offsets and similarity scores), embedding details, and truncation behavior. Fully adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter purposes but adds minimal new information beyond schema descriptions. No syntax or format details beyond what schema provides.

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 that the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record, provides examples (SEC 10-K, article), and explains output (passages with offsets and similarity scores). It also distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by describing their pairing.

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 advises using this tool when the record is too large for the prompt, highlights context-saving benefit, and directs to pair with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded reasoning. No ambiguity about when to use.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: requires authentication, returns subscription id, SMS rate limit of 10/day, webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, and that delivery channels are optional. 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.

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and returns value. While it packs extensive information, it remains readable and well-organized. Could be slightly more concise but efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given 3 parameters (2 required), nested objects, and no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, parameter details, constraints, prerequisites, and return value. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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%. Description adds meaningful examples for each enum value (e.g., sec_8k params with ticker/items) and explains delivery channel constraints (SMS must match verified phone, email validated, webhook HMAC-signed). This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns the new subscription ID. The verb 'create' and resource 'subscription' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and 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?

The description provides prerequisites (requires OAuth account), supported types with examples, and delivery channel options. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. Clear context but missing explicit 'when to use vs. others'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about returning category-bucketed examples with exact tool+argument shapes, drawn from a live catalog. 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.

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

The description is thorough but slightly verbose. It is well-structured with bullet points of categories and clear opening. Could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned (category-bucketed questions with tool+argument shapes). Given the tool's complexity, this is adequate.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (one optional parameter), but the description adds meaning by listing possible topic values and explaining that omitting it yields a cross-category spread. This clarifies default behavior.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as an onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions with tool and argument shapes. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for 'getting started' and learning about Pipeworx capabilities.

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 advises using this tool first when the agent doesn't know what Pipeworx can do, and to learn how to call meta-tools. Provides context on calling with or without a topic. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, deactivation not deletion, and preservation of historical events via recent_alerts. Annotations indicate write, non-destructive, and idempotent, which are consistent. 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?

Three concise sentences, each essential. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by ownership and behavioral details. No wasted words.

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

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

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, ownership, and row deactivation with historical data preservation. Complete for this simple 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'id' parameter. The description only says 'by id,' which adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on cancellation.

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 usage context by noting ownership enforcement ('only cancel your own subscriptions') and the row deactivation behavior. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear for the intended use.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns a verdict with specific types, structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta, and mentions the data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL). 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.

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

The description is moderately long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value (examples, domain, replacement of sequential calls). Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers input format, output (verdict types, citation, delta), domain limitation, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing example claims and specifying the natural-language format, making it easier for the agent to construct valid inputs.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, specifically company-financial claims for public US companies. It uses explicit verbs like 'validate', 'fact check', 'verify' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on factual claim validation, not search or entity resolution.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides example claim types. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives, but the scope (company-financial) is clear, and the context makes it distinct.

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