Openbeautyfacts

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free), optional Anthropic probe requires BYO API key (cost implication), and the response structure per model (score, confidence, signals, raw_response) plus combined view. This covers safety, cost, and output behavior not conveyed by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint 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 extremely concise at two sentences, yet covers all critical aspects: action, default model, optional API key, output structure, and use cases. Every sentence contributes value with 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 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides complete coverage: purpose, mechanism, output format, and use cases. It includes cost implications and behavioral details, making it fully sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema. For example, it explains that the default model is workers-ai and that _apiKey is only needed for Anthropic. It also clarifies that 'context' helps disambiguate common names. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter usage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model.' It specifies the verb (probe), resource (LLMs), and unique output (visibility score). The description distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on AI visibility scoring across multiple models.

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

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

The description provides clear use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The context is clear enough to infer appropriate usage, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds valuable context: routes question to one of 3,668 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answer with stable citation URIs. 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?

Front-loaded with key guidance. Somewhat long but every sentence adds value. Examples are helpful. Could be slightly more concise but well-structured.

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 broad scope, no explicit output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and provides concrete examples.

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 many aliases for the question parameter. Description mentions accepting natural language but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Crystal clear purpose: answers factual questions using authoritative structured data from a vast array of sources. Uses specific verbs ('routes', 'returns') and explicitly contrasts with web search. Lists many example domains and query types.

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

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

Explicitly states 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and provides specific when-to-use guidance with numerous examples and query patterns. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but positive guidance is strong and clear.

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

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the extraction mechanism (using ONLY the tool result) and listing explicit refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, llm_error). It also mentions the cost: 'Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx.' Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc., and the description does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing behavior, return format, and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, though it could be slightly more concise without losing content.

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, extraction, refusal modes), the description is comprehensive. It covers success response structure (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null) and all failure modes with explicit refusal reasons. Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains return values.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already provides (question and aliases). The schema itself documents all parameters fully.

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 defines the tool as a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and details its process: routing to the right tool, filling arguments, fetching data, extracting the answer solely from the tool result. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by highlighting the extra LLM call cost and appropriate usage contexts.

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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' with specific examples (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). It also states to 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups,' offering a clear when-not-to-use 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: fan-out mechanism, resolver contract with confidence levels, parent event extraction, news fallback handling, low-confidence short-circuit, closed market handling, and wide spread tradeability notes. 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 lengthy but well-structured with clear headings (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.). Every section adds value, but the verbosity could be trimmed slightly for quicker parsing. Organized enough to facilitate scanning.

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 explains response shapes, resolver contract, parent events, news fields, and edge cases. Covers classifiers, fan-out examples, safety mechanisms, and tradeability. Very 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% with each parameter described. Description adds significant meaning: market accepts slug, URL, or question text; depth enum explains 'quick' vs 'thorough' with source count; include_raw explains default false with size implications. Greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

Description starts with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by listing usage examples and detailing the fan-out process, making the tool's unique role apparent.

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 for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' Also provides safety notes on checking market_match_confidence and handling closed markets. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent.

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs), off-calendar fiscal year handling, metrics returned, and sorted results. 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 a single focused paragraph, front-loaded with usage triggers, then explains functionality and data sources. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds useful 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 no output schema, description adequately covers return format ('paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs') and sorting behavior. For a tool with 2 params and clear behavior, this is fully 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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description enriches meaning by explaining what each type pulls (e.g., 'latest 10-K revenue + net income + cash + long-term debt' for companies) and expected input formats (tickers/CIKs or drug names), adding value beyond basic schema.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as performing side-by-side comparisons of 2–5 companies or drugs. It specifies the action ('compare'), the resources (companies/drugs), and the scope, distinguishing it from single-entity tool like 'entity_profile'.

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

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

Explicitly advises to 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also lists natural language triggers that help agents identify appropriate contexts.

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 that it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that results are 'ready to call directly.' This is 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 somewhat verbose but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the return value and usage. It 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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value (tools with names, descriptions, schemas). It covers the main use case fully, though it doesn't describe the ranking or relevance algorithm.

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 meaning by stating that query accepts natural language descriptions and lists aliases (task, q, description, search). It also provides examples in the schema, enhancing understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists numerous specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and explains that it returns tool names, descriptions, and schemas. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are for specific tasks.

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 instruction: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. Description adds context: lists data sources (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), details return fields, and notes USPTO API sunset ('soft-fails until reactivated'). This provides useful behavioral insights beyond the annotations, though annotations already cover the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

Description is a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with query examples and key guidance. It packs a lot of information without excess wordiness. Slight improvement could be bullet points for clarity, but it remains concise relative to the content.

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 details return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents with sunset note, news, LEI). Covers input constraints and fallback behavior. For a complex multi-source tool, this provides sufficient completeness for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 meaning: explains that 'type' is only 'company' (not person/place), and 'value' should be ticker or zero-padded CIK (not names). Also gives examples like 'AAPL' or '0000320193'. This complements the schema's own descriptions.

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

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

Description starts with clear user query examples ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme') and states 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It clearly identifies the action (profile retrieval) and resource (US public companies). It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_entity and compare_entities by specifying input constraints and alternatives.

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 instructs 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack ... lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' Provides clear guidance on inputs: 'Pass ticker ... or zero-padded CIK ... names not supported (use resolve_entity first if you only have a name).' This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus 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 states 'Delete' which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). Adds context about clearing sensitive data, but doesn't elaborate on behavior like irreversible deletion or error handling. Annotations already cover safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, every word earns its place. 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 one-param deletion tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and pairing. Return information is not needed as no output schema exists.

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 has 100% coverage with description 'Memory key to delete'. Tool description adds 'by key' but no extra semantic beyond schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by naming 'remember' and 'recall'.

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

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

Explicitly provides when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data', and mentions pairing with related tools.

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 goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) by explaining the process: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown. This provides rich behavioral detail without contradicting 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: first sentence states purpose and audience, second explains process/output, third lists use cases. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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

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

The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, but annotations cover safety. The description fully explains the input, process, and output format (text blob). It is complete for a simple fetch-and-format tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. The description of 'url' and 'max_links' parallels the schema descriptions; no new semantics are introduced. 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 generates a 'production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which focus on auditing or checking visibility, not generating llms.txt files.

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: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing competitor's AI view. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds source (Open Beauty Facts) and return fields, but not extensive behavioral context beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

Two sentences with an example, 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?

Completeness for a simple lookup with one param and rich annotations. Could mention external dependency but not necessary.

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 description. Tool description reinforces with example but adds no new semantic 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 verb ('lookup'/'Get'), resource ('beauty product by barcode'), and specific data return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_products' by focusing on barcode lookup.

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?

Implied usage for barcode lookup but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions. Does not mention alternative tools like search_products.

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 lists return fields but adds no extra behavioral traits beyond these. Given annotation coverage, it adequately complements them.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and output details, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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

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

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. Annotations cover safety. 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?

The schema covers the only parameter (include_inactive) with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'subscriptions', specifying 'caller's active subscriptions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' which are for different actions.

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 usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Though it doesn't mention when not to use, it gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day) and that it does not count against tool-call quota, adding value beyond annotations. 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?

Concise 4-5 sentence description that front-loads the purpose and includes all relevant details without unnecessary repetition. 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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description fully covers input requirements, constraints, and expected outcomes, making it self-sufficient for correct 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds context by explaining the 'type' enum meanings, the 'context' object structure, and the 'message' length constraint. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: sending feedback (bugs, features, data gaps, praise) to the Pipeworx team. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on feedback collection, not data retrieval or analysis.

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 each feedback type (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and what to avoid (pasting end-user prompts). Also mentions rate limits and free usage, helping the agent decide 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the data source (CF analytics-engine), absence of PII, and caching duration. 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 moderately long but efficiently organized: purpose statement, three bullet use cases, and technical notes. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given the simple parameter set, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It conceptually describes the return structure (top tools, top packs, total call volume) without needing an output schema.

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 single parameter 'window' has 100% schema coverage with enum values and a description. The description adds semantic guidance on when to choose each window (hot vs. steady-state).

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over selectable windows. It uses specific verbs like 'returns' and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on trending data.

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?

Three explicit use cases are provided, making when to use the tool clear. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the context signals list many siblings. The caching behavior helps set expectations.

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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: monotonicity checks, partition-sum validation, semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), partition filtering, and response structure. 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 dense and front-loaded with the requirement, but it is lengthy and mixes multiple concepts (event mode, topic mode, partition filter, response) in a single paragraph. It could be more structured with bullet points or clearer separation.

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 adequately explains the response fields (opportunities[], gap_pp, partition_check, etc.). It also covers failure modes (empty args, placeholder filtering) and the semantic anchor. No output schema needed, but rate limits or authentication are not mentioned (though annotations cover safety).

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds significant meaning: explains the behavior of each mode, provides examples of valid inputs (slugs, URLs, seed questions), and details internal checks (partition_check, monotonicity). This goes well 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 uses specific verbs ('Find', 'checks') and clearly identifies the resource ('arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket'). It explicitly distinguishes two modes (event and topic) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_kalshi_spread.

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

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

The description explicitly states the requirement to provide either 'event' or 'topic' and that calling with no arguments fails. It provides guidance on which mode to use (event for specific market, topic for cross-event scanning). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare directly to 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?

The description adds extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: caching (1h at KV level), edge computation mechanics, diagnostic output, and tradeable-edge knobs. It fully aligns with readOnlyHint and other 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 thorough but verbose, with detailed model-specific technicalities (e.g., per-sport alpha values) that may not be essential for all callers. Front-loaded with purpose, but some sentences could be tightened 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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers expected output structure (by_segment, diagnostics, per-opportunity fields), caching behavior, and filter logic, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to interpret 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the rationale behind filter knobs (e.g., min_liquidity, min_kelly vs min_partition_leg_kelly) and their interaction, enhancing understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('top Polymarket markets'), returning opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing three distinct opportunity segments (model_driven, structural_arbitrage, concentrated_longshot).

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 ('what should I bet on today') and explains when to use tradeable-edge knobs. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, it implies limitations (e.g., Fed bets excluded from ranking) and provides context for filtering.

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 (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) are consistent. Description adds extensive behavioral details: compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, skipped cross types/subtypes, and safety fields. 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 long but well-structured with clear sections. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, 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?

Given the complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: behavior, safety fields, response format, and edge cases. It fully compensates for missing output schema by detailing response contents.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the two modes, how topic maps to events, and the override behavior of explicit parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool calculates cross-venue spreads between Polymarket and Kalshi for the same resolving question, with two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit matching). It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue spread.

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 clear guidance on when to use topic mode vs explicit parameters, explains compatibility warnings and temporal alignment. Explicitly warns that most pre-mapped topics are not tradeable. However, does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives, though sibling names imply differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: scoping to identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID) and the behavior when key is omitted (list all keys). No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is front-loaded with the action, then provides usage, scoping, and pairing information in three concise sentences. No wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, scoping, and relationships to sibling tools, while annotations cover behavioral safety.

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 has 100% coverage with a single optional parameter 'key'. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of omitting the key (list all keys) and the purpose of using the tool (look up context).

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a value saved via remember or lists all keys if the key argument is omitted. It uses specific verbs and resource (retrieve value/list keys) and distinguishes from siblings (remember, 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?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (look up previously stored context) and mentions scoping to the agent's identifier. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use but implies its role for retrieval, and pairs with remember and forget.

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 important behavioral traits beyond annotations: mark_read flagging events read so subsequent calls show newer events, and mentions the same feed is accessible via GET endpoint. The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, but the description adds context that partially contradicts those 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 a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by parameter explanations and a usage note. It is well-structured and contains 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 tool without output schema, the description covers return fields, parameter usage, and even an alternative endpoint. It is fairly complete, though it lacks mention of pagination or ordering beyond 'most recent'.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by providing examples (e.g., type 'sec_8k'), explaining mark_read behavior, and clarifying the effect of since. This goes beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool pulls fired events from the subscription feed and lists key fields. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like subscribe or 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 usage context: filtering by type/since, mark_read flag, and that polling works fine. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds significant context: fans out to multiple sources with specific fallback logic, returns grouped changes with citation URIs, and notes a soft-fail for USPTO. 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 dense but slightly verbose. Front-loaded with query examples and well-structured. Could be tightened but still 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return structure (changes[], total_changes, citation URIs) and covers source behavior and limitations. Combined with comprehensive annotations, the tool is fully documented for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying accepted formats for 'since' (ISO date or relative shorthand) and 'value' (ticker or CIK), and noting 'type' is limited to 'company'.

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 provides a change feed for a company over a time window, with explicit examples of use cases ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y'). It distinguishes from the sibling entity_profile by noting when to use the alternative.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance via natural language examples and a clear when-not-to-use statement referencing entity_profile. Also describes fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews) and source limitations (USPTO sunset).

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 (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds behavioral details: scope by identifier, persistence time limits, and that it's a write operation. 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?

Four sentences, each purposeful: first states core action, second gives usage guidance, third adds technical constraints, fourth links to sibling tools. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 sufficiently covers behavior (idempotent, non-destructive), scoping, expiration, and partnerships with recall/forget. An agent has enough context to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema already covers both parameters (key, value) with descriptions. The description adds extra context by suggesting key naming patterns (e.g., 'subject_property') and clarifying value can be any text, providing additional 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?

The description clearly states the tool saves data for later reuse, specifying key-value pairs and giving concrete examples like 'resolved ticker' or 'user preference'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming recall and forget for retrieval and 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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. Provides context on persistence (authenticated vs anonymous, 24-hour expiry) and pairs with recall and forget, giving clear guidance on 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool cascades through multiple endpoints, replacing 2-3 manual lookups, which provides useful context without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is moderately lengthy but well-structured: it starts with example queries, then gives usage guideline, then details supported types. Every sentence adds value, though some minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 sufficiently explains return values for each type, covers all parameters, and states internal cascading behavior. It provides complete guidance for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description enhances understanding by detailing what each type returns (ticker+CIK+URI for company, RxCUI+ingredient+URI for drug) and acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, name, brand/generic).

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 resolves user-spoken names to canonical identifiers. It uses specific verbs like 'resolve' and 'look up', and differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its role as the go-to for converting names to IDs.

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 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and provides example queries. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, 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?

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent. The description adds that it probes entities with ai_visibility_check and returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. No contradictions; adds useful behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, includes example quote. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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

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

The description explains process and output fields, no output schema needed. Missing details on error handling or constraints, but adequate for a comparison tool with 4 parameters.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra meaning: entities first entry is the 'subject', models explains workers-ai vs anthropic and API key requirement. This provides clarity beyond 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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, ranking by score. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) by focusing on multi-entity 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 explicitly says it's useful for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example question, implying when to use. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timed-out sources. It also details the return structure (summary, advisories, links, alternatives), compensating for no output schema.

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 information-dense but well-structured, starting with the composite purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise (e.g., the return content list). Given the complexity, it 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (summary, advisories, links, alternative versions), failure modes (partial degradation, timeout handling), and performance characteristics (first measurement delay). It covers all necessary context for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by noting that version defaults to latest published and that scoped packages (e.g., @types/node) are accepted, which is not in the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's composite function: a combined check across deps.dev and bundlephobia to answer if an npm package should be added. It specifies the verb 'scan', the resource 'npm package dependency', and the scope 'NPM ecosystem only in v1', distinguishing it from sibling tools like deps.dev:version for other ecosystems.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: when an agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding an npm package. Also provides clear exclusion guidance: for PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go, use deps.dev:version directly, ensuring the agent knows when not 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 read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds context about return fields (barcode, name, brand, categories, image) and example usage. 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 three sentences plus an example, front-loaded with purpose and content. 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?

Given the annotations and schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input, output fields, and provides an example. Complete for a simple 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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'by name or keyword' which aligns with the query parameter, but no additional semantic value.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool searches cosmetics and personal care products by name or keyword in Open Beauty Facts, and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_product (specific product) and search_within.

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 an example and mentions usefulness for finding ingredients, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like get_product or 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds technical details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char limit with truncation flagging, and output includes offsets and similarity scores. This provides substantial extra 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 approximately 120 words, structured logically: purpose, usage scenario, pairing, technical details. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and quickly moves to actionable guidance.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores) and mentions the verification use case. It could be more explicit about the exact data structure, but it is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what to expect.

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 all parameters. The description adds real-world examples for the query parameter ('supply-chain risk', etc.) and explains that text is 'already pulled' content. This enriches the schema definitions and helps the agent craft appropriate inputs.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('semantic search') and resource ('inside a fetched record'), and clearly distinguishes its niche from siblings by explaining it is for searching within a previously fetched text, pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. It avoids tautology and is unambiguous.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when the record is too large to fit in the prompt. It also mentions a complementary tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the purpose of saving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it 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.

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, but the description says 'Returns the new subscription id', which could imply creation. However, it does not contradict annotations directly. The description adds behavioral context like OAuth requirement, SMS cap of 10/day, and webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, which goes beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

The description is detailed and well-organized, starting with purpose and prerequisites, then types, then delivery. While it is relatively long, every sentence adds useful information. A slightly more concise listing of types could improve, but it 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 complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, parameter details, delivery options with limitations, and examples. It lacks explicit mention of the response structure beyond 'new subscription id', but the annotation fills idempotency concerns. Overall highly 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant value by providing concrete examples for each subscription type (e.g., sec_8k items code, polymarket_edge topic, fred_series series_id) and detailed delivery channel behavior (e.g., webhook HMAC signing, SMS verification requirement).

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 'Create', the resource 'proactive monitoring subscription', and the domain 'live-data event stream'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts by specifying that it creates a new subscription.

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 prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account, not anonymous/BYO), lists supported subscription types with examples, and explains delivery channels. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, but the context is sufficient for an AI to determine appropriate 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, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (category-bucketed examples with exact tool and argument shape) and how the tool behaves with and without the topic parameter. 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 well-structured, starting with trigger phrases, then output explanation, then usage. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but the front-loading of critical info is 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 no output schema, the description explains the output structure (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shape) comprehensively. It covers the single optional parameter's usage and the ideal use case. For a simple tool with one param, 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 description coverage is 100% with a 43-word description for the only parameter. The description further enriches semantics by listing valid topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and the effect of omitting the parameter (cross-category spread). This adds meaningful 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 that this tool returns example questions for what Pipeworx can answer, bucketed by category. It explicitly lists trigger phrases like 'what can I ask?' and 'give me ideas,' and distinguishes itself as the onboarding entry point from sibling tools 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 gives explicit guidance: use this FIRST when you don't know what Pipeworx can do, or to learn how to call meta-tools. It also explains when to omit vs. specify the 'topic' parameter, and implies that after using this tool, the agent should know what to ask.

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 non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds ownership enforcement and the deactivation behavior, providing context beyond annotations. No contradiction detected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and ownership rule; the second explains the effect on data. Highly efficient.

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

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description provides all necessary context: ownership, data persistence, and link to recent_alerts.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.'). The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline score is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and the specific resource ('subscription'). It distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by focusing on cancellation.

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

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

It explicitly states ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), which is a key usage condition. It also explains the effect (deactivation not deletion) and that historical events remain available, aiding in deciding 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 indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), domain limitation (v1 supports company-financial claims), and return format (verdict, actual value with citation, percent delta). 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 a single paragraph but well-structured: trigger phrases, purpose, domain, returns, and efficiency benefit. It is informative yet efficient, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 and one parameter, the description fully explains return values (verdict, structures, citation, delta), domain restrictions, and usage context. It is complete and leaves no major 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'claim' parameter well-described. The description adds examples and explains how the claim is processed (natural-language verification), going beyond the schema's basic 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 the tool verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources, explicitly lists trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…', and specifies it focuses on company-financial claims for public US companies, making its purpose distinct and specific.

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 clearly instructs to use the tool when checking factual correctness of a user's statement, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-financial claims) or compare directly with sibling tools, though it implies it replaces multiple calls.

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