Open Elevation

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds: uses Workers AI by default, requires BYO Anthropic key (with cost implication), returns per-model structure. It does not mention rate limits or error handling but provides context beyond bare 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 of ~150 words, front-loaded with purpose and action, followed by model details, return format, and use cases. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition.

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 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description fully explains what to expect: per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} and a combined view. It covers all edge cases (default model, optional apiKey, context disambiguation) 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 for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b free), that _apiKey is only needed if 'anthropic' is in models, and that context disambiguates. This goes beyond bare 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 probes LLMs for brand visibility and scores it 0-100 per model. It specifies verb (probe, score), resource (business/brand/product/topic, LLMs), and differentiates from siblings like entity_profile or ask_pipeworx which focus on specific queries rather than visibility scoring.

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 mentions use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains when to use optional apiKey (for Anthropic). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not 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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context: returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, fills arguments, one fast call, works on every tier. 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?

Description is lengthy but well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded key guidance. Every sentence adds value; could be slightly shorter but remains effective.

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 (routing to 4552 tools), the description is remarkably complete: specifies use cases, examples, alternatives, and behavioral details. No output schema but describes return type.

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% (all parameters described). Description mentions the alias flexibility (accepts query, q, prompt, etc.), which adds minor value beyond the schema. 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 tool routes questions to a vast set of authoritative sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) for structured data. It provides specific examples and distinguishes 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?

Explicitly states 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and gives detailed when-to-use guidance, including specific query types and when to use alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers, deep_research for broad questions).

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?

Description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it uses only tool result, returns structured object with refusal reasons, costs extra LLM call. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.).

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 and front-loaded, but slightly verbose. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, mechanism, and usage guidance. Minor redundancy in aliases list but overall 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?

For a complex tool (high-stakes, multiple refusal reasons, large tool set), description covers purpose, behavior, return format, refusal reasons, cost trade-off. No output schema but return structure is explained sufficiently.

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 aliases documented. Description adds minimal param detail (mentions argument filling) but doesn't significantly extend beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' specifies it extracts answer only from tool result, and contrasts with sibling ask_pipeworx by noting the extra LLM call. Verb+resource+scope are explicit.

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: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts,' with specific examples. Also advises preferring ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, providing clear alternative.

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 annotations. It explains low-confidence short-circuits (status:'low_confidence_match'), closed market handling, wide-spread warnings, resolution-rule risk, and parent event extraction. Annotations only state readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc., but the description adds crucial details about safety and edge cases, fully compensating for the lack of annotation details.

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 and dense, covering many details in a single paragraph. While front-loaded with purpose, it becomes verbose with many examples, response shapes, and edge cases. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) or trimmed to essential information, but the density is not inefficient.

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 (classifiers, fan-out, resolver, parent event, news fields, safety, resolution rules), the description covers all necessary aspects for an agent to understand behavior and output. No output schema exists, so the detailed explanation of response shapes and fields compensates fully. The description leaves no critical 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?

All three parameters (market, depth, include_raw) have schema descriptions. The tool description adds context: e.g., that market can be a slug, URL, or question; depth quick vs thorough; include_raw summarizes vs full payloads. This adds value beyond the schema, but since the schema already provides clear descriptions, the addition is moderate.

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: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies the input types and use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are more general or specific (e.g., compare_entities, polymarket_edges). The verb 'research' and resource 'Polymarket bet' are specific, and the examples reinforce the purpose.

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 lists use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also provides multiple examples of fan-outs for different bet types, giving context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling tools, which would have earned a 5.

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 idempotentHint. Description adds details: pulls latest data, handles off-calendar fiscal years, returns sorted results with citation URIs. 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?

Description is front-loaded with example queries and well-structured. While slightly long, every sentence adds value. Could be marginally more concise but efficient overall.

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, description explains that return is paired data with citation URIs, sorted by primary metric. Covers both entity types adequately for a comparison 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% and description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., type determines data source, values examples). Enriches 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?

Description clearly states tool does side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It provides example queries and specific data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs), distinguishing it from sequential 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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. Provides examples of when to use. Missing explicit when not to use, but strong positive 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral details: account required, parallel decomposition, returns findings packet with gaps[], no invented content, expected 15-60s latency. 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 detailed but front-loads critical information (account requirement, alternatives). Every sentence serves a purpose, though it is somewhat lengthy. Could be slightly 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?

For a tool with 2 straightforward parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description thoroughly explains return format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, gaps[]), limitations (empty gaps for uncataloged topics), and expected latency. It provides all necessary context for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has 2 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds context beyond the schema: explains depth options correspond to number of facets (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and notes defaults. Question description clarifies that broad/multi-part questions are acceptable. This adds meaningful 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's purpose: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1160 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call'. It also distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by noting appropriate use cases for each, ensuring the agent understands the unique value.

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. It states 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx', and mentions account requirements and paid plans for depth:'thorough'.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that results include full schemas and examples, ready to call directly. 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, but domain list is extensive and could be more concise. Overall acceptable but not maximally 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?

Covers what the tool does, what to expect (top results with schemas), and usage context. No output schema but return format is described. Adequate for a discovery 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%, baseline 3. Description adds concrete examples, explains query as natural language, and lists aliases, providing meaning beyond raw 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 finds tools by describing data/task, lists many domains, and distinguishes from siblings by directing to call this first for browsing options.

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 says to call this first when wanting to see the option set, implying it's for discovery rather than direct task execution. No explicit alternatives named, but context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context, including the parallel fan-out across multiple sources, the USPTO sunset footnote with soft-fail behavior, and the fallback chain (GDELT→GNews). This goes beyond annotations to disclose edge cases and 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 dense and information-rich, starting with clear example queries and then detailing behavior and returns. While every sentence earns its place, the description is somewhat lengthy (5-6 sentences). A slightly more streamlined version could improve conciseness, but it remains well-structured and front-loaded.

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 good schema coverage (100%), detailed parameter descriptions, and a comprehensive list of return items in the description, the tool is well-documented for AI selection. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating returned fields. Completeness is high, though a structured output schema would further enhance 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% (2 parameters fully described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'value' accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK, emphasizes that names are not supported, and clarifies that 'type' currently only supports 'company'. This significantly aids correct parameter selection.

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: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It lists specific sources and outputs, and distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity, making it easy for an AI agent to understand exactly what the tool does.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also specifies that names are not supported and directs to use resolve_entity first, giving an alternative. This is excellent 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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is clear. The description adds that it deletes by key, which is straightforward. No additional behavioral traits are needed given the tool's simplicity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a pairing note. Every sentence adds value—action, usage context, and related tools. No 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, annotations cover safety, and there is no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. Nothing is missing.

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 parameter 'key' is described as 'Memory key to delete' in the schema. The description repeats 'by key' but does not add new details about key format, allowed values, or constraints. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 ('Delete a previously stored memory by key') and the resource (memory). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'remember' and 'recall'. The verb 'delete' is specific and 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also pairs the tool with alternatives ('Pair with remember and recall'), helping the agent choose correctly.

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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds process details (fetches page, extracts title/description/links, emits markdown) which are useful but not contrary to 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a concrete example. It is efficient but could be slightly more compact; still, it earns its 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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, process, and output format ('single text blob'). It is fully sufficient for an AI 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the input schema. The description does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so 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?

Description clearly states 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', specifies the resource and action, and explains the process. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning auditing competitors, which is specific to this tool.

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?

Description lists three use cases (client site indexing, personal project drafting, competitor auditing), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives among siblings.

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, which fully cover safety and idempotency. The description adds the unit (metres above mean sea level) and the single-point scope, providing marginal but useful behavioral context 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 concise sentence (9 words) that front-loads the core purpose and unit. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema (context indicates output schema exists), the description is complete. It specifies the output unit, single-point scope, and the purpose, which is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 each parameter having a basic description ('Latitude', 'Longitude'). The description does not add extra semantics to the parameters, but since coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional value from the description.

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 the tool returns elevation in metres above mean sea level for a single lat/lon coordinate. The verb 'get' and resource 'elevation' are specific, and the phrase 'single lat/lon' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_elevations' which likely handles multiple points.

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 'for a single lat/lon', which indicates when to use this tool (single point) versus the sibling 'get_elevations' (multiple points). While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to choose appropriately.

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 cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the recommended batch limit (1,000) and that the output includes elevation in metres. This complements the annotations 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 two concise sentences without any fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('Batch elevation lookup') and immediately provides actionable usage details. 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (inferred). The description covers input format, batch limit, and output unit (metres). Given the annotations and schema richness, nothing critical is missing.

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 describes the 'locations' parameter as an array of objects with latitude and longitude. The description adds the recommendation of up to 1,000 points, which is a usage hint rather than semantic addition. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not significantly enhance parameter meaning.

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: 'Batch elevation lookup', specifying the verb (lookup), resource (elevation), and that it operates on multiple points. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_elevation' which presumably handles single points.

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 'Pass an array of {latitude, longitude} points (up to 1,000 per call recommended)' which provides a clear usage guideline on batch size. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the term 'Batch' and the existence of 'get_elevation' imply when to use 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 declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. Description adds valuable context about return fields (id, type, etc.) 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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous 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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers return fields and usage context, aided by rich annotations.

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 with description of 'include_inactive'. Description adds no extra semantic value 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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'subscriptions' clearly describes the action. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel.' Implicitly differentiates from other actions.

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 (all false), but the description adds critical behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and doesn't count against tool-call quota. 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?

Description is concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value (usage guidance, constraints, format). No 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?

For a simple feedback tool, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, and parameter guidance. No output schema needed. Complete for the 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 meaning by explaining the enum values for 'type' and the structure of 'message' (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars). Adds extra guidance 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's purpose: to tell the Pipeworx team about bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (Pipeworx team). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx) by focusing on feedback.

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 provides when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and what not to do (don't paste end-user prompt). Also mentions rate limits and that it's free, guiding appropriate 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral details: data source (CF analytics-engine), privacy (no PII), and caching (5min-1h). 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by use cases and technical details. Every sentence is informative and necessary. No fluff.

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 covers what is returned (top tools, packs, total call volume) and includes caching behavior. For a simple tool with one parameter and rich annotations, this is complete.

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 enum descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between windows: 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This helps agents choose the right parameter.

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 returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. It specifies the resource (Pipeworx trending data) and the action (returns). This is distinct from sibling tools like discover_tools or ask_pipeworx, which serve different purposes.

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 lists three explicit use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool choice, seeing alignment). While it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare with alternatives, the use cases are clear and cover the main 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint all true. The description adds significant behavioral depth: explains monotonicity checks, partition_sum, semantic anchor for cross-event, partition filter, fill check with live book depth, and null signals for invalid cases. 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 long but well-structured with clear sections for each mode, constraints, and response. It front-loads the main purpose and uses dense, informative sentences. Every sentence adds value, though a minor reduction for 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 of the tool and that there is no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains edge cases (skipped_low_similarity, placeholder filters, fill check), response structure, and how to use custom sizing via polymarket_fill_risk. No gaps are apparent.

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% (both event and topic have descriptions). The description adds further meaning: examples of slug formats, recommended mode, and detailed explanation of how each parameter affects the scan. It also describes the response fields, compensating for lack of output 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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) with specific use cases, and the verb 'Find' plus resource 'Polymarket arbitrage' is precise. Siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk are differentiated.

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 each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'event (recommended for a specific market)', 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. Also warns about not trading when realizable_edge_pp <=0, providing clear when-not-to-use context.

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 and idempotent. The description adds extensive behavioral details: explanations of model families, edge computation, filter rationale, caching policy, and diagnostics. 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 massive paragraph that is verbose and lacks structure. It front-loads purpose but then goes into extensive technical detail that could be broken into sections or bullet points for easier parsing.

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 thoroughly covers all aspects: response segments (by_segment), edge components, filter knobs, diagnostics, caching, and edge cases like Fed bets. It is complete for the tool's 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%. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, e.g., explaining slippage in context of zero trading fees, rationale for spread_pp and min_kelly filters, and nuance about min_partition_leg_kelly versus partition-level Kelly.

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 scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, with a clear purpose ('what should I bet on today'). It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the unique model families and segments.

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 for when to use (discovering opportunities) and includes performance hints (KV caching). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like 'polymarket_arbitrage' or 'bet_research'.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, assuring safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details: response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), time-series data, trend and decay computation, limits (60-day TTL), and that decay numbers are from daily closes, not intraday.

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 but every sentence adds value. It front-loads purpose, then details response fields, and includes limits. No redundancy or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure with fields like tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]. It also covers limits and data sources, making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces defaults and adds output structure context (RESPONSE field), which provides extra meaning 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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence and decay, and it explicitly answers 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'.

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 gives context for when to use this tool by contrasting a fresh wide edge vs. a 3-week-old one, implying it's for assessing edge age and decay. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though the context strongly suggests its niche.

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: it walks the ladder, returns fill details and a verdict, and warns about partial fills converting arb to directional risk. Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, which matches the 'check' nature.

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 (almost a paragraph) but well-structured with bold headings and clear sections. However, it could be more concise for quick comprehension while maintaining completeness.

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 (two modes, multiple return fields), the description is comprehensive. It lists all return values for both modes, explains the verdict, and warns about risks. No output schema, so the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 3. The description adds extra context: explains how `size_usd` is interpreted differently between modes, gives examples of side values, and notes defaults and clamp range. This adds moderate value 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 it performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth'. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly says to use this tool before acting on polymorphic_arbitrage or polymarket_edges signals, differentiating it from siblings.

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: 'REQUIRES one of market or event' and specifies conditions 'before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills lead to unhedged positions).

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: details on compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, and skipped comparisons. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond the structured fields.

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 lengthy but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then details modes, response fields, and safety information. It uses clear sections (e.g., 'TWO MODES', 'RESPONSE', 'SAFETY FIELDS'). While not extremely concise, every sentence adds necessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (cross-venue, three parameters, no output schema), the description covers all needed aspects: response format, safety fields, compatibility warnings, and temporal alignment. It also notes the rarity of tradeable spreads. The description is thorough and self-contained.

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 each parameter having a description. The description adds meaning by listing the topic shortcuts, explaining that explicit params override topic, and providing example values (e.g., 'KXFED-26OCT'). This adds value 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 explicitly states the tool computes cross-venue spread between Polymarket and Kalshi for the same resolving question, with specific verb 'Cross-venue spread' and clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage) by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

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 two modes (topic shortcuts or explicit IDs) and provides safety conditions for compatibility warnings. It warns that most pre-mapped topics are not tradeable, guiding appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools to say when to use this 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, and destructiveHint. Description adds scoping detail ('Scoped to your identifier...') and behavior when key is omitted ('list all saved keys'), providing context beyond annotations. 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 sentences, front-loaded with key action and use case, 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 read-only tool with one parameter and full annotations, the description provides sufficient context: use case, scoping, and relationship to sibling tools.

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 clear description for the single parameter. Description reiterates the same info (omit key to list all), adding no new meaning 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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys'. Verb (retrieve/list) and resource (saved values/keys) are specific and differentiate from sibling tools '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?

Explicitly says 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch' and pairs with 'remember to save, forget to delete', providing clear guidance on when to use and how it relates to 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?

Description contradicts annotations: mark_read parameter implies writing (flagging events read), but annotations set readOnlyHint=true. This is a serious inconsistency.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then key fields, filtering, and polling. No unnecessary words, well-organized.

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 no output schema, description compensates by listing returned fields and behavior. Covers parameters and use cases well, though missing order and pagination details.

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. Description adds value with concrete examples (e.g., type 'sec_8k') and explains mark_read behavior, exceeding baseline.

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 the subscription feed, specifying resource and action. It lists key fields returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload) but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_subscriptions.

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

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

Provides some usage guidance (e.g., polls work fine, alternative REST API), but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or when-not-to-use. No mention of constraints or prerequisites.

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, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds detailed behavioral info: fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews fallback, USPTO soft-fail, and output format (changes[] grouped by source). 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 example queries, but slightly verbose in listing sources and fallbacks. Every sentence is informative, so it's not wasteful, but could be trimmed slightly.

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 explicitly states the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). Covers parameter formats, fallback behavior, and error handling for USPTO. Complete for a change-feed 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%. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining since format with examples (ISO date or relative shorthand), type only supports 'company', and value can be ticker or 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a change feed for a company in the last N days, with example queries like 'What's new with X'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 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?

Explicit examples of when to use (e.g., 'latest on Y') and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead'). Also describes fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews, giving clear context for invocation.

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 false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds key behavioral details: scoping by identifier, persistence duration (24 hours for anonymous, persistent for authenticated), and the key-value storage model. 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 concise, with four sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, including usage examples and behavioral nuances, 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 low complexity (2 string parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage timing, storage behavior, persistence rules, and related tools. No gaps remain for an agent to use it 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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds general context (e.g., examples like 'subject_property') but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Per guidelines, 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 tool saves data for reuse across conversations or sessions, using a specific verb ('Save data') and resource ('data'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget' by explicitly mentioning pairing with them.

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 the tool ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and gives concrete examples (resolved ticker, target address, etc.). It also mentions the pairing with recall and forget, offering 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description reveals internal cascading behavior, supported entity types, and output structures (ticker, CIK, RxCUI). This provides rich behavioral context not captured by annotations alone.

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 purpose, followed by structured type details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is dense yet efficient, using bullet-like structure without being overly verbose.

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 lack of an output schema, the description fully compensates by listing return fields (ticker, CIK, company_name, citation URI, RxCUI, ingredient, brand). It covers input, output, and internal behavior, leaving no gaps for this lookup 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 description adds significant value beyond the schema: it details accepted input formats for each type (company: ticker, CIK, name; drug: brand or generic) and specifies output fields. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches 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 explicitly states the tool resolves names to canonical identifiers, provides example queries, and contrasts with sibling tools by noting it's a prerequisite ('use FIRST'). It clearly distinguishes from other tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 directly advises 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, guiding the agent on efficiency.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it probes each entity, uses ai_visibility_check internally, ranks by score, and returns a structured result (score, confidence, signal density). It also mentions optional API key passing. 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 two sentences plus a use case illustration. It is front-loaded with the core action, contains no redundant information, and every sentence adds value. It is efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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?

All aspects are covered: purpose, input parameters (4, 1 required), use case, internal mechanism (probes with ai_visibility_check), and output (ranked list with score/confidence/signal density). Despite no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return format. It is complete for an agent to decide 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond schema for individual parameters but provides context (e.g., 'context disambiguates common names' is present in schema description already). The description connects parameters to the overall workflow (probes with ai_visibility_check), which is helpful but not additional semantics per parameter.

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 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' and details its function: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and identifies most/least recognized. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison) by specifying its competitive AI-marketing audit use case.

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 clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and example question. It implicitly suggests using ai_visibility_check for single entities but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or list alternatives. However, the context is sufficient for understanding when this tool is 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?

Discloses internals: fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia, returns specific fields, and notes bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s with sources_failed on timeout. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; description adds valuable behavioral context 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?

Single dense paragraph covering all key information without excess. Could be slightly restructured for readability, but every sentence contributes meaningful content. Efficient for an AI agent.

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 lack of output schema, the description fully explains the returned data (summary block, per-advisory detail, alternative versions) and handles edge cases like partial failures and first-measurement delays.

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 already documents both parameters (package name with scoped package acceptance, version with default to latest). The description reiterates these points but adds no new semantic value 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 specifies a composite check for deciding to add an npm package, covering license, advisories, bundle size, etc. It clearly identifies the tool's single-call nature and NPM-only scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like deps.dev:version.

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 use cases: 'is X safe / popular / small' and 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also explicitly states NPM-only in v1 and directs other ecosystems to deps.dev:version directly, preventing misuse. Mentions graceful degradation for partial failures.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds beyond that: truncation at 200K chars, embedding model (BGE-base-en), 500-char windows, output format (offsets and scores). 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?

About 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then technical details. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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

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 values (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores) and limitations (200K char cap with truncation flag). Refers to sibling tool. Complete for a search 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. Description adds example queries for `query` and clarifies `limit` range, but does not add substantial meaning 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?

Description clearly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with specific examples (SEC 10-K body, article). Distinguishes from sibling tools by naming `ask_pipeworx_grounded` and explaining the workflow.

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 says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and mentions pairing with `ask_pipeworx_grounded`. Does not list 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?

The description discloses key behavioral traits: returns subscription ID, requires OAuth, delivery channels include always-on feed, and optional email/sms with verification and rate limits. It also notes webhook auto-disabling. These details go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). 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 comprehensive but somewhat dense, mixing multiple concepts in a single paragraph. While front-loaded with the main action, the structure could be improved with clearer separation of supported types and delivery channels. Still, 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 complexity (3 params with nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the return value, all subscription types, delivery options with prerequisites, and behavioral constraints. It is complete 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, including detailed examples of type-specific params (e.g., sec_8k with items, polymarket_edge with topic). It clarifies required and optional fields and provides usage patterns.

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 and returns the new ID. The verb 'Create' and resource 'subscription' are specific, and it is easily distinguishable 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 explains that a Pipeworx OAuth account is required, and lists supported types and delivery options. It implicitly advises against use by anonymous users. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_subscriptions for non-subscription tasks, which would improve 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool returns dynamic examples from a live catalog, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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, front-loaded with the key use case, and efficiently packs synonyms, parameter guidance, and behavioral details without waste.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, and outcomes, leaving 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?

The schema covers the single optional parameter 'topic' with a description. The description elaborates with concrete focus area examples, adding value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is exceeded.

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 the onboarding entry point for a new agent, specifying it returns category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shapes. It uses strong verbs and distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools.

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 use this tool first when unfamiliar with Pipeworx, and provides guidance on calling with or without a topic parameter. It does not explicitly list alternatives but the sibling list and context suffice.

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?

Description adds ownership constraint and soft-deletion behavior (deactivation) beyond annotations' destructiveHint and idempotentHint. 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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. 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?

For a simple 1-param mutation tool with annotations, the description adds ownership and lifecycle behavior. No output schema, but the deactivation context and link to recent_alerts provide sufficient completeness.

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% for the single parameter 'id', and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' Baseline score applies.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id', and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by mentioning ownership enforcement and deactivation vs deletion.

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?

Ownership enforcement implies only cancel own subscriptions. Deactivation note guides users that events remain via recent_alerts. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling link.

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, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns a verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta, and discloses the v1 scope (company-financial claims). 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 purpose and examples. It is reasonably concise, though the first paragraph could be slightly tighter. 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?

With a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return types, scope, and what the tool replaces. It is complete for the tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds example claims but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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 verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources, with example phrasings. It specifies the domain (company-financial claims) but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like deep_research or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 user intents. However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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