list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent). Description adds value by detailing default behavior (active subscriptions) and return fields. 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 the main action, no fluff. 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 no output schema, the description explains all returned fields and the filter parameter. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke 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 coverage is 100% with a good description for the sole parameter. Description reinforces the default state (active vs inactive) and how the parameter changes it, adding context 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). It distinguishes itself from siblings 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: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) which all serve to query data but with subtle differences. An agent would struggle to distinguish which to use without deep understanding of their nuances.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern in snake_case, but there are exceptions like 'forget', 'recall', 'remember' which are single verbs, and names like 'ask_pipeworx' mix verb and proper noun. Overall pattern is discernible but not uniform.
33 tools is high for a server named 'Open Sanctions' which implies a focused domain. The tool set spans sanctions, meta-querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and more, making it feel bloated and unfocused relative to the server's name.
For a sanctions server, only two tools (search_entities, get_entity) directly address the domain, missing obvious operations like update, delete, or list. Many tools are unrelated to sanctions, leaving the core domain incomplete.