references"What does paper [DOI] cite" / "references in [paper]" / "what sources does this paper use" — DOIs cited BY the given DOI (the paper's reference list / bibliography). Use for citation-graph traversal, literature review, source tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| references | No | DOIs cited by the given DOI |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful semantic context by clarifying that the tool returns the paper's reference list, which is not implied by the tool name alone. It 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the phrasing with common user queries, and efficiently communicates the core function and use cases without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one simple parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, leaving no significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'doi' is not described in the schema (0% coverage), but the description effectively conveys that 'DOI' refers to the paper whose references are to be retrieved, through phrases like 'given DOI' and the query examples. This is adequate for a single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool returns the references/bibliography (DOIs cited BY the given DOI), using explicit query examples like 'What does paper [DOI] cite'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the direction of the citation relationship, which is critical for citation-graph traversal.
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 usage context: 'Use for citation-graph traversal, literature review, source tracking.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., the sibling 'citations' for finding papers that cite a given DOI).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical router variants, and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/ai_visibility_check all inspect companies from overlapping angles. The six Polymarket tools form a tightly-overlapping mini-domain that further crowds the surface.
All names are snake_case, but verbs are inconsistently used: many tools are noun phrases (citation_count, entity_profile, polymarket_edges) while others start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim). Some prefixes like ask_* and polymarket_* help, but the overall verb/noun pattern is not coherent.
37 tools is well above the typical 3–15 tool scope, and several are redundant variants (three ask_pipeworx modes) or hyper-specific sub-tools (six Polymarket tools). The server name suggests a focused citation service, but only six tools actually address citations, leaving the set bloated with unrelated data query and memory utilities.
For a general data-query gateway, the surface is quite broad and covers lookup, profiling, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory. But as an OpenCitations server it lacks a way to discover papers by topic and the breadth of the other domains is unwieldy and unowned—so notable gaps exist in any plausible stated purpose.