Openchargemap

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

Annotations indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about probing multiple models, cost implications for Anthropic API calls, and the structure of the response (score, confidence, signals, raw_response). 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 concise at 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with the primary function. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, default model, key handling, output structure, and use cases.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (per-model object with score, confidence, signals, raw_response, plus combined view). It covers all parameters, optionality, and usage scenarios, making it fully informative for an AI 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default model, the significance of _apiKey, and the purpose of 'context' for disambiguation, going 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 probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and returns a visibility score per model. It highlights the default model and optional Anthropic integration, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like entity_profile or ask_pipeworx.

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 specific use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains when to provide _apiKey. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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 openWorldHint. The description adds that it routes to 3,745 tools, returns structured answers with stable URIs, and fills arguments. This provides 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 fairly long but well-structured with bold emphasis and a clear hierarchy. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition exists in listing aliases. It is effective but not maximally concise.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (structured answer with citation URIs) and the tool's routing behavior. It covers the key aspects a user needs, though it omits error handling or edge cases.

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 lists aliases and gives examples, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The examples are helpful but not essential depth.

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 is for factual questions about current/historical data across many domains, with specific examples. It explicitly contrasts with web search and provides a long list of use cases, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 detailed guidance on when to use ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', 'whenever the user asks...') with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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, etc. The description adds crucial behavioral details: hallucination-resistant mechanism, extraction only from tool result, explicit refusal reasons ('not_in_source', 'no_tool_match', etc.), and return structure. 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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: starts with core purpose, explains mechanism, then return format, then usage guidance. Every sentence is informative, but some redundancy ('Same routing as ask_pipeworx') could be tightened.

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 across many sources, refusal logic, high-stakes use) and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input parameters, behavioral guarantees, return values, and when to use, leaving no ambiguity.

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 all 6 parameters being aliases for 'question'. The description adds value by listing the aliases and clarifying that the parameter accepts natural language. While the schema already describes each alias, the description reinforces usability.

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 is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by noting the cost difference and use case. The verb 'EXTRACTS' and resource 'answer from tool result' provide specificity.

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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on...' and lists domains (financial, legal, medical). Also states preference: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' and mentions cost trade-off.

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 what annotations provide, such as resolver confidence handling, market match alternatives, parent event extraction, news fallback, safety short-circuits, and resolution-rule risk. This is comprehensive and adds significant value for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, followed by detailed explanations of classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, and safety considerations. While comprehensive, it is somewhat long but each section adds necessary information for proper use, so it earns its length.

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

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

The description is highly complete for a tool with no output schema, thoroughly explaining all response fields, edge cases (low-confidence matches, closed markets, wide spreads, resolution rule risk), and fallback behaviors. It covers everything an agent needs to correctly interpret results.

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 meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the three possible input formats (slug, URL, question text), clarifying the effect of depth (quick vs thorough fan-out), and detailing the include_raw parameter's impact on response size. This enhances parameter semantics despite high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases ('Use for "should I bet on X"...') and examples, giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest 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 declare readOnlyHint and statelessness. The description adds behavioral details: for company type, it pulls specific financial data from SEC EDGAR/XBRL with proper fiscal year handling; for drug type, it pulls FAERS, FDA approval, and trial counts. Results sorted by primary metric. This provides 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?

The description is front-loaded with trigger phrases and core purpose, then details per type. It is informative but slightly long; every sentence adds value, though 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 states it returns 'paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity' and highlights efficiency ('replaces 8–15 sequential lookups'). It could specify the return format more precisely, but it is sufficient 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 descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the enum values for 'type' and provides concrete examples for 'values' (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names), adding 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's purpose: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call.' It uses specific trigger phrases and distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups, making the purpose highly clear.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies it is for comparisons.

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. Description adds significant context: grounded answers, parallel research, structured findings with citations, gaps[], pre-verified facts, and paid plan requirement. 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 fairly long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and explains workflow efficiently. Minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall well-structured for the complexity.

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

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

Given no output schema, description thoroughly explains return format: 'structured findings packet' with 'verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, and stable pipeworx:// citation' and explicit gaps. Covers time expectations (15-60s) and parallel processing behavior, making the tool fully understandable.

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. Description adds extra meaning: depth is 'how many facets' (3/5/8) and question is 'natural language, broad/multi-part is fine', going beyond the schema to clarify usage 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?

Description clearly states 'Grounded multi-source research in ONE call' and explains decomposition into sub-questions with parallel routing. It distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting it's for single lookups, making the purpose specific and 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?

Explicitly states 'Use for broad or multi-part questions' and contrasts with ask_pipeworx for single lookups. Also mentions account requirements and depth limitations, providing clear when-to-use and 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns top-N relevant tools with full input schemas and curated examples, and each result is ready to call directly without a second schema lookup. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies 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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., the list of domains is long), but it remains efficient and informative without redundancy.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas). It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter aliases. The examples and 'ready to call' detail make it complete 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%, so baseline 3. The description mentions the query parameter accepts natural language and lists aliases, but this information is already in the schema. The description adds examples, but they are in the schema's examples field. No significant added 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding tools by describing data or task. It lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and emphasizes it's for browsing/discovery. It distinguishes from siblings by saying 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools' and contrasts with getting a single answer.

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 you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and provides examples like 'look up FDA drug approvals'. It advises calling this first to see the option set, which guides the agent on when to use this tool versus 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description adds substantial behavioral context: it fans out across multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, GDELT/GNews, GLEIF), returns specific fields, notes the patent API sunset May 2025 with soft-fail behavior, and explains the news fallback chain. 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 front-loaded with relatable example queries, then efficiently covers purpose, usage preference, return fields, and known limitations. Every sentence adds unique value without repetition, achieving high density of 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 the tool's complexity (multi-source aggregation), lack of output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates all returned data elements (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals with specific fields, patents with caveats, news, LEI) and covers edge cases (name unsupported, patent sunset). No gaps remain.

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

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

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds key meaning: it explains that type is currently limited to 'company,' that value accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK but not names, and provides examples. It also advises using resolve_entity if only a name is known, which the schema does not convey.

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 opens with numerous example user queries that directly map to the tool's purpose, then states 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It clearly specifies the verb (profile) and resource (US public company) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_entity by noting it does not support names.

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 '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 states when not to use it (if only a name is available, use resolve_entity first), effectively excluding 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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns (operator, status, connector types, speed, distance), which goes beyond the annotations. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned, but the annotations cover safety. 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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides value—first states action and context, second details output and filtering. No unnecessary words. Structure supports quick comprehension.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned data (operator, status, connector types, speed, distance). It covers the main functionality and filtering. However, it omits mentioning default values like max_results=20 or pagination behavior, which are present in the schema but not highlighted in the description. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 mentions filtering by connector type, which reinforces the 'connection_type' parameter but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Other parameters like latitude, longitude, distance, max_results, distance_unit, and _apiKey are adequately described in the schema. The description does not compensate further.

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 EV charging stations near a location, specifying the verb 'Find' and the resource 'electric vehicle chargers'. It lists return fields (operator, status, connector types, speed, distance) and filtering option, making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_station', the focus on listing multiple stations is implicit and clear.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions filtering by connector type, which helps in using the tool effectively, but does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'get_station' for single station details). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data, but no contradictions. Additional details about side effects (e.g., persistence) could be beneficial but are not required.

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 action. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers its purpose, usage context, and pairing with related 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% and the schema description for 'key' is clear: 'Memory key to delete'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not 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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory by key', making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by focusing on 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 states when to use the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also suggests pairing with sibling tools 'remember and recall'.

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard llms.txt markdown, and outputs a single text blob ready for site-root. This goes beyond 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 concise with only three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding behavioral details and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, output format, and usage scenarios. It is sufficiently complete to guide an agent without missing critical information.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3. It does not elaborate on max_links semantics or special formatting requirements.

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 'Generate' and resource 'llms.txt file'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool focused on this specific output, and provides concrete use cases.

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 on when to use the tool (e.g., getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for own project, auditing competitor visibility). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, missing some exclusion 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 declare readOnlyHint and nondestructive. The description adds useful context about returned data (connector types, speed, status, comments), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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

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

Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key details. Every word adds value, with the primary action 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 the tool's simplicity, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the return data and usage. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke 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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description reiterates the purpose of the 'id' parameter but does not add significant 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?

The description clearly states the action ('get full detail'), specific resource ('single EV charging station'), and the method of identification ('by its Open Charge Map POI ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_stations'.

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

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

The description implies when to use (when a specific POI ID is known) and hints at the limitation to a single station. It does not explicitly exclude other contexts or mention alternatives, but the sibling context provides differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds further context by listing the exact fields returned and explaining the tool's role in reviewing subscriptions, which supplements the annotations without contradicting 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 exceptionally concise—three sentences that pack the core purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main action and has 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 simple parameter set and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and return values. It could mention pagination or limits, but for a straightforward list tool, it is complete enough.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (include_inactive). The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the score is at baseline 3.

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 lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifies the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), and contrasts with sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by indicating its use for review before adding or obtaining an id for cancellation.

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

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

The description explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it.

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 limit (5 per identifier per day), free usage, and that it doesn't count against tool-call quota. No contradiction with annotations (all false) and adds significant 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?

Concise single paragraph of 6 sentences, each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main action, then specifics. 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 all necessary aspects: usage scenarios, constraints, expected input format. No output schema needed; completeness is sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds extra guidance on how to write messages and clarifies the enum values, enhancing understanding 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 the tool's purpose: to provide feedback about broken, missing, or needed things. It specifies concrete categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and differentiates from sibling tools which are query/action 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, praise. Also states what not to do (don't paste end-user prompt) and provides context on usage limits and impact on roadmap.

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 valuable context beyond annotations: data source (CF analytics-engine), privacy (no PII), and caching behavior (5min-1h). No contradiction with annotations present.

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

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

Three concise sentences with clear structure: returns statement, use cases in bullet-like format, and technical note. 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 1-param tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (top tools, packs, volume) and provides enough 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?

The only parameter 'window' is fully covered by schema with enum and description. The description enriches it with default and behavioral guidance (short windows for hot, long for 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 trending data (top tools, packs, call volume) over a window. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discover_tools by focusing on popularity metrics rather than general discovery.

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

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

The description provides three specific use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool, aligning use case with agent needs). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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 idempotent, read-only, non-destructive behavior. Description adds details on partition checks, similarity thresholds, fill check with book depth, and placeholders filtering.

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 with clear sections, but somewhat lengthy. Appears front-loaded with requirement, then modes, then details.

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, description explains return fields fully. Covers all behavioral aspects, error conditions, and integration with fill risk 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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds detailed explanations, examples, mode differences, cross-event search, and edge cases (placeholder slugs, fill check).

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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. Distinguishes between event and topic modes with specific use cases.

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 event vs topic mode, warns that call with no args fails, and references sibling tool polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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 what annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) provide. It explains internal model families, response segmentation (by_segment), tradeable-edge knobs, and caching behavior. No contradiction with annotations; all disclosed behaviors are consistent with a read-only, idempotent operation.

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 verbose, diving deep into model details (e.g., 'lognormal barrier from 90d FRED log-returns') that may not be necessary for tool usage. While front-loaded with purpose, it could be trimmed by ~30% without losing essential guidance. Structure is present but not lean.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers return format (by_segment, diagnostics, edge fields), parameter effects, and edge cases (e.g., Fed candidates excluded, filter skips explained). It also mentions caching and slippage assumptions. No gaps identified.

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 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters under 'TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS' and explaining their interplay (e.g., how min_liquidity and max_spread_pp drop opportunities, how min_partition_leg_kelly applies to per-leg Kelly). This holistic context improves decision-making beyond individual 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: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It specifies the verb (scan/return) and resource (Polymarket edges opportunities), and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx disagreement.

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 the tool: 'Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets.' It implies daily scanning use case but does not explicitly exclude or compare with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage. No when-not instructions, 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 declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds key behavioral details: snapshot-based, 60-day TTL, decay computed from daily closes (not intraday), and snapshot date gaps. 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 dense and includes all relevant info, but is a single long paragraph that could be better structured for readability. It is front-loaded with purpose.

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

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

Without an output schema, the description fully explains return fields ('tracked', 'expired', 'snapshot_dates') and their structure, plus limits and caveats. Complete for a read-only 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 descriptions, and the description adds context: default and max values for 'days', default for 'window', and explanation of snapshot families, enhancing 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('track') and resource ('edges'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on persistence and decay over time.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when needing edge longevity and trend data) but lacks explicit contrast with alternatives like 'polymarket_edges' for raw snapshots.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: it explains that the tool walks the ladder, returns verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warns about thin books and forced directional risk. It does not contradict 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 well-structured with clear sections for SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET modes. It uses an efficient style with bold headings and concise parameter descriptions. While slightly long, every sentence adds necessary detail, and there is 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 complexity of two operation modes and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), explains the logic for verdicts, and warns about risks. The agent has all information needed to understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how `size_usd` is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode, and how `side` defaults are determined in basket mode. This enriches the schema information.

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: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It explicitly distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and references sibling tools polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, differentiating its role as a pre-action risk check.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills lead to directional risk) and states the requirement for either `market` or `event`.

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 key behavioral traits beyond annotations: two modes, response structure (leg prices, matched spread, safety fields), and detailed explanation of compatibility_warning triggers (non-equivalent bet shapes, semantically unrelated events). Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) are consistent; no contradictions.

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

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

Well-structured with clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) and front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose with parenthetical details, but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but effective 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response (leg-by-leg prices, spread[], safety fields like compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). Covers edge cases and behavior for mismatches, providing complete contextual information for a tool with 3 parameters.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining the topic list (10 shortcuts), explicit ticker format with examples, and override behavior. This extra context elevates 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 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question,' specifying the verb ('spread') and resources (Kalshi, Polymarket). It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage (intra-Polymarket) and provides a unique value proposition.

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

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

Describes two usage modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit tickers) and explicitly warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings, advising caution. Implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on cross-venue spreads, and explains when spreads are meaningless (temporal misalignment).

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. Description adds scoping info (anonymous IP, key hash, account ID) and behavior when key omitted (lists all). Does not contradict 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 4 sentences, front-loaded with action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage examples, scoping, and pairing with siblings. 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, scoping, and relationship to siblings. Lacks explicit mention of return format (value or list), but inferred from 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% with a single parameter, well-described. Description adds 'omit the key argument' for listing all keys, which reinforces schema. Marginal 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves values saved via 'remember' or lists all keys. It specifies the verb (retrieve/list) and resource (saved values/keys), and distinguishes from sibling tools like '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?

Provides clear context for when to use: looking up stored context like ticker, address, notes. Mentions scoping and pairing with remember/forget. However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternatives beyond implicit pairing.

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, and non-destructive. Description adds value by explaining the mark_read parameter's state-changing behavior (flags events as read for subsequent calls) and notes feed persistence, providing 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?

Four sentences front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details, and a note on alternative access. No redundancy or fluff; 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?

No output schema exists, so description must explain return values—it does by listing fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload). Covers parameter behaviors (mark_read) and notes feed ordering. Missing pagination details, but limits parameter implies control. Sufficient 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning for type, since, and mark_read (e.g., 'Flag the returned events read in the same call'), going beyond schema descriptions. Limit and unread_only are already clear in schema, so description adds no extra for them but overall adds 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?

Clearly states the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed, specifies returned fields (source, citation_uri, raw event payload), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and subscribe by focusing on event retrieval rather than subscription management.

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 context for use: polling works, same feed available via direct URL. Implicitly guides when to use (retrieving alerts) and offers filtering by type and since. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context 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?

Discloses fan-out to multiple sources, fallback logic (GDELT→GNews), USPTO soft-fail. Annotations already show safe read, but description adds rich behavioral details 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 paragraph well-structured with front-loaded examples. 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?

Tool has 3 required params, no output schema, but description explains return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). Completes context fully.

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% parameters with descriptions. Description adds examples, relative shorthand explanation, and CIK format, enhancing understanding 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 explicitly states it returns change feed for a company with SEC filings, news, patents. Provides example queries and distinguishes from sibling tool 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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance with examples and differentiates from entity_profile. Provides parameter recommendations (use '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring). Could include 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?

Beyond annotations, describes scoping by identifier, persistence duration (24h for anonymous, permanent for authenticated), and no side effects (destructiveHint=false).

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 purpose, no redundant 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?

Complete for a simple key-value store: covers persistence, scoping, pairing with siblings; no output schema needed.

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 (100%), but description adds concrete examples for key and explains value as arbitrary text, 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?

Clear verb+resource ('Save data for reuse'), explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools recall and forget, and specifies cross-session context.

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?

States when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward'), provides alternative tools (recall, forget), and explains pairing.

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, etc. The description adds behavioral context: each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally, and it auto-disambiguates company names. No contradictions, and the additional context is valuable 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?

Description is detailed but well-structured with examples and bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be trimmed without losing clarity, 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return value structure for each supported type, including citation URIs. It covers input variations and internal cascading logic, making the tool's behavior fully understandable 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%, but description adds rich semantics: for 'company' returns ticker+10-digit CIK+company_name+citation URI; for 'drug' returns RxCUI+ingredient+brand. It also clarifies acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, name) and mentions auto-disambiguation, going well 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 resolves user-spoken names to canonical identifiers, using strong verb+resource ('resolve entity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly advising 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' Example queries reinforce 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever you have a name but need an ID'. Provides example queries and notes that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, giving clear context for tool selection.

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

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations (e.g., probing each entity, ranking, output fields like score/confidence/signal density), with no contradictions to 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?

Four well-structured sentences front-load the purpose, then mechanism, use case, and output. Every sentence is essential and efficiently phrased.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format. Parameter complexity is handled with both schema and additional context. The tool is well-positioned among siblings.

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 meaningful context: first entity as subject, default model, and example for context, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, specifying the process (probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score) and distinguishing it from single-entity checks.

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 frames the tool for competitive AI-marketing audits and indicates the first entity is treated as subject, but does not explicitly exclude single-entity use or mention sibling tools like ai_visibility_check as 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list if timeout. 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence is informative, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Minimal 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, description fully specifies return fields (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, recent versions) and behavior (partial failures, timeout handling). Covers ecosystem scope and version defaults comprehensively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters well-documented. Description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it repeats the same info. 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 composite check for npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia, listing exact checks (license, advisories, version history, bundle size, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying npm-only scope and mentioning alternatives for other ecosystems.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me''. Also specifies when not to use: for PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go, use deps.dev:version directly.

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 significant behavioral details beyond annotations: uses BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are supported and not contradicted.

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 front-loaded sentences covering purpose, use case, and technical details. Efficient but slightly wordy in technical specifics; no wasted 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?

No output schema, but description explains return structure (passages with offsets and similarity scores). Covers embedding model, windowing, truncation, pairing with sibling tool. 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%, so baseline is 3. Description reinforces parameter purpose with examples (e.g., query examples like 'supply-chain risk') and clarifies limits (text max chars). Adds 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?

Description clearly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' by noting that search_within returns passages and offsets for verification, while the sibling grounds over those passages.

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 pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding. Provides examples of queries. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: returns a new subscription id, delivery channel behaviors (feed always on, SMS cap, webhook signing secret returned once), and auto-disabling of webhook after 10 consecutive failures. It also specifies that the webhook response includes a one-time signing secret. These details are not in the annotations and provide essential operational context.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and is well-structured, but it is fairly long (three sentences with dense information). While every sentence adds value, the length might be slightly reduced without losing clarity. The organization is logical: purpose, then types with examples, then delivery channels. Minor penalty for length, but overall concise given the tool's complexity.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, 5 subscription types, multiple delivery options), the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter semantics with examples, prerequisites (OAuth account), behavior (returns id), and limitations (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable). It lacks explicit mention of idempotency or output schema (though it states returns id). The sibling context is not needed in the description. It is complete enough for an 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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema. It provides concrete JSON examples for each subscription type (e.g., sec_8k params: {ticker, items}, polymarket_edge: {topic, min_spread_bps}). For the delivery parameter, it explains email/SMS/webhook sub-fields with constraints (SMS must match verified phone, webhook HTTPS only, HMAC signature verification). Schema coverage is 100%, but the description's examples and behavioral notes significantly enhance 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 tool's purpose: 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream.' It specifies the resource (subscription) and action (create), and provides explicit examples of supported types (sec_8k, polymarket_edge, etc.), distinguishing it from related tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts by focusing on creation.

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

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the requirement for a Pipeworx OAuth account and that anonymous/BYO accounts cannot persist subscriptions. It details delivery channels (feed always on, optional email/sms/webhook) with constraints (SMS 10/day cap, webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, phone verification needed). This helps the agent decide when the tool is applicable and what prerequisites exist.

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. Description adds context about returning example questions with tool+argument shapes, which goes beyond annotations by describing the output's nature and structure.

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 fairly long but every sentence earns its place. It starts with purpose, then lists categories, then explains usage. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 thoroughly explains what is returned: category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes. This is complete for an onboarding tool, covering both what and how it helps the 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%, and the schema already describes the topic parameter. Description adds value by explaining what happens when omitted ('full spread') and when a topic is provided ('focus'), plus listing example values.

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 the tool is an onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions. It uses specific verbs ('returns') and resource ('example questions'), 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?

Explicitly says to use it FIRST when you don't know what Pipeworx can do. Also explains when to omit or use the topic parameter, and mentions that it teaches how to call meta-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?

Discloses ownership enforcement and clarifies that the row is deactivated (not deleted) to preserve historical events. Adds value beyond annotations by explaining the mutation and data lifecycle.

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, no waste. First sentence captures the core action, second adds crucial constraints and effects.

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-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership, and data change behavior comprehensively.

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%, missing only the id parameter. The description mentions 'by id' but does not add further detail beyond the schema's existing 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 action 'Cancel a subscription by id.' Distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying the cancellation action.

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 ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and explains the effect (deactivation not deletion). Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but offers clear 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds output details (verdict types, citation, percent delta) and notes it replaces multiple sequential calls. No behavioral traits beyond annotations needed.

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, front-loaded with trigger phrases and uses. It efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and output. The information density is appropriate with no redundant 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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, supported claim types (company-financial), return values (verdict types with citation and delta), and why it's useful (replaces sequential calls). It 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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'claim'. Description adds context about supported claim types (company-financial), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's description of 'natural-language factual claim'.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification. It provides trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim') and specifies the domain (company-financial claims). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' or '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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' Scoped to company-financial claims. No explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions, but the use case is well-defined.

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