Opendosm My

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by detailing return structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view) and cost implications (free default model, BYO key for Anthropic). 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?

Three sentences: purpose, details on models and API key, then return format and use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Highly efficient.

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

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

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully explains all parameters, return values, and use cases. It covers both free and paid models, and the context parameter is clearly described. No 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the default model and how models parameter interacts with _apiKey, and clarifies context usage for disambiguation. This adds meaningful context.

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

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

The description specifies a clear action: probe LLMs for knowledge about an entity and score visibility (0-100). It explicitly states the resource (businesses, brands, products, topics) and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on AI visibility scoring, which is a unique offering compared to tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

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

The description provides clear use cases such as AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, and competitive monitoring. It also explains when to use the optional API key for Anthropic. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, missing a bit of 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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent). Description adds context: routes to 3,668 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs. 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 well-structured with a strong opening directive, clear criteria, and examples. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly.

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

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

No output schema exists, but description explains return type (structured answer with citation URIs). It covers purpose, usage, and examples adequately for a query tool with strong annotations.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with all 6 parameters as aliases for 'question'. Description adds that it accepts natural language and gives examples, but does not significantly expand per-parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.

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 answers factual questions about current/historical data from many authoritative sources, with citations. It uses specific verbs like 'route' and 'return', and distinguishes itself from web search.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for factual questions, provides detailed when-to-use criteria (e.g., 'what is', 'look up', 'find'), and gives concrete examples.

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, destructiveHint. The description adds significant context: explains internal process (picks tool, fetches data, extracts answer using only tool result), lists refusal reasons, and notes the cost trade-off. No contradiction.

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

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

Description is moderately long but every sentence adds value. Well-structured, front-loading key purpose. Some minor redundancy but overall efficient.

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

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

Given the complexity (multiple aliases, internal routing, refusal modes) and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains refusal reasons, output structure, extra LLM cost, and use cases. Complete for a grounded mode.

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% - all properties have descriptions. The description does not add new parameter info beyond aliases and natural language. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and specifies that it extracts answers using only tool results. It distinguishes from sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by noting the extra LLM call and explicit refusal behavior.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when not to prefer ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). Provides clear context and 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?

The annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds extensive behavioral context: resolver contract with match confidence levels, fan-out categories, short-circuit mechanisms for closed markets or low-confidence matches, tradeability warnings for wide spreads, and news fallback handling. 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 lengthy but every sentence adds essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, then details behavior. While not broken into sections or bullet points, the information density is high and no redundancy is present.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response shape (market, analysis, evidence, resolver contract, parent event, news fields). It covers edge cases like low confidence, closed markets, and illiquid spreads, ensuring an agent can handle all outcomes 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds practical guidance (e.g., default depth is thorough, include_raw false is recommended to keep responses small). This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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 researches a Polymarket bet using Pipeworx data, accepting slugs, URLs, or question text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on a single bet with evidence fan-out.

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

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

The description explicitly says when to use it: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also provides input examples and notes that closed markets or low-confidence matches return blocking statuses, guiding appropriate usage.

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

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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, return of paired data and citation URIs, and efficiency claim.

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 examples and clear sections, but slightly verbose; could be tightened while retaining informativeness.

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?

Compensates for missing output schema by describing return format (paired data, citation URIs) and covers both types 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 coverage is 100%, and description adds meaning by explaining value format (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug), constraints (2-5), and sorting behavior.

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 side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, provides example queries, and distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending over sequential lookups.

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

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

Clearly states when to use (comparing entities), with examples and preference over sequential lookups, but does not explicitly list when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns top-N relevant tools with full input schemas and curated examples, ready to call directly without a second lookup. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance. It lists many example data categories, which adds helpful context but also makes it somewhat verbose. The structure is logical, but each sentence could be more compact.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned (top-N tools with names, descriptions, full schemas). Parameter count is 6 but mostly aliases, which are explained. The description covers the tool's role as a discovery mechanism, making it complete for its purpose.

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 schema documents all parameters. The description adds a natural language description of the 'query' parameter and mentions aliases, but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs ('find', 'browse', 'search', 'look up', 'discover') and clearly states the resource: tools for various data/task domains. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as a meta-tool for discovery, explicitly advising 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available'.

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 when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for:' followed by a comprehensive list of data types. It also advises calling it first when many tools are available. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about the fan-out across sources, USPTO sunset and soft-fail, and the limit to companies only. 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 relatively long but well-organized. It front-loads usage examples and the key preference rule. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Overall, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-source aggregation, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all outputs, sources, limitations (e.g., patent sunset, name not supported), and fallbacks. The sibling tools list includes relevant alternatives like compare_entities and resolve_entity, which complements the description.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'value' can be ticker or CIK, explicitly says names are not supported, and recommends resolve_entity. It also clarifies 'type' is limited to company. This is valuable context for proper invocation.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It lists specific outputs (cik, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending preference over chaining individual data lookups.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use: when user asks for a holistic view (e.g., 'tell me about X', 'research Acme'). Also states when not to use (names directly, advises using resolve_entity first) and distinguishes from chaining other tools. Clear 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 provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it deletes by key, consistent with annotations. No extra behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance. 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?

Complete for a simple 1-param destructive tool. Describes purpose, usage scenarios, and sibling relationship. No output schema needed for such a straightforward operation.

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% with parameter 'key' described. Description mentions 'by key', adding no new meaning beyond schema. 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 deletes a memory by key, using specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'previously stored memory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools remember and recall by mentioning pairing.

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 lists when to use: stale context, task done, or clearing sensitive data. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use but adequate context for a simple tool.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral details: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. Discloses output as a single text blob. Could mention rate limits or error handling but adds good 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?

Two main sentences plus a 'Useful for' bullet list. Front-loaded with purpose, then method, output, and use cases. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Well-structured and efficient.

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

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

Given simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, process, output format, and use cases. Could mention success/error responses or page size limits, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and invoke.

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

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

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, e.g., not mentioning max_links or url specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states it generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with specific verb+resource. Lists extraction steps and output format. Distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation.

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 lists three concrete use cases: client site indexing, personal drafting, competitor auditing. Provides clear context for when to use, though does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; description adds valuable details about returned fields and default filtering of inactive subscriptions, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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

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

Two succinct sentences: first clearly states the action and output, second provides use-case guidance. No wasted text.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: core function, returned fields, default behavior, and usage 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% for the single boolean parameter; description adds minimal insight beyond the schema by hinting at default behavior ('active subscriptions'). Adequate but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active subscriptions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear context for usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral detail such as returning metadata and sample row, reinforcing inspection nature.

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

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

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence describes output, second provides usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.

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

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

With one parameter and annotations present, description adequately covers purpose, usage, and output. Does not address error cases or pagination, but sufficient for a simple metadata 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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. Description repeats the requirement and provides an example, adding 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?

Description clearly states it returns metadata for one Malaysian dataset, listing specific fields and a sample row. It distinguishes from sibling tools like opendosm_get_dataset (data retrieval) and opendosm_list_datasets (listing).

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 recommends use for inspecting a series before pulling or checking freshness. Provides clear when-to-use context, though does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about keyless, authoritative access, the need for dataset IDs from siblings, and limitations on date ranges. 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 fairly long but well-structured, with main purpose first, then id discovery, dataset list, and syntax explanations. Every sentence adds value, though some brevity could be improved without losing clarity.

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

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

Given the tool complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers all aspects: parameter usage, filter/range syntax, date handling, and dataset examples. It is complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: lists high-value dataset IDs for id, explains sort prefix, numeric-only range with optional bounds, and filter format with example. This enhances 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 it fetches records from an official Malaysian statistics dataset, specifies the source, and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning opendosm_list_datasets and opendosm_dataset_meta for discovery. It provides specific dataset IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (to fetch data) and when not (no listing endpoint, so use siblings for discovery). It provides alternatives and detailed usage instructions for filter, range, and sort, including caveats about date ranges.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the hand-verified nature and what each entry includes (id, topic, description, value columns). No contradictions.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence provides value. No redundancy or wasted words.

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

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

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the source limitation (no machine endpoint) and the curated nature, which is helpful 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% (one parameter 'topic' with description). The tool description adds that the filter is optional and gives example values, but this mostly repeats the schema's description. No additional semantics 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 lists curated, verified high-value datasets from data.gov.my/OpenDOSM, specifying the types (inflation, GDP, labour, etc.) and distinguishing it from siblings like opendosm_get_dataset which retrieves a specific dataset.

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 says 'Optionally filter by topic' and provides example topics, but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus opendosm_dataset_meta or opendosm_get_dataset, nor does it mention 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?

The description discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), that it's free and doesn't count against tool-call quota, and that feedback is read daily. Annotations are all false, but the description adds transparent 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 informative but not excessively long. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more concise. The key details are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 feedback tool with 3 parameters, the description is complete: covers purpose, usage, context, format, rate limits, and quota. No output schema is needed as feedback submission typically returns a simple acknowledgment. The description provides all necessary 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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches each parameter: explains enum values for 'type', adds usage details for 'message' (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars), and clarifies 'context' as optional with examples. This adds 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 is for sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It specifies the verb 'tell' and resource 'Pipeworx team', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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 each type (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and what not to do (don't paste end-user prompt). Also mentions rate limits and that it's free, providing clear guidance on when to invoke.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it's a self-aggregating signal from CF analytics, no PII, and cached 5min-1h, enhancing transparency 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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: output, use cases, technical details. Front-loaded with the core function. 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers input behavior, return data shape, caching, and use cases. No gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

The single parameter 'window' is fully documented in the schema with enum values and descriptions. The tool description adds interpretive value (shorter windows surface hot, longer show steady-state), going beyond the schema's basic explanation.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a selectable window. The verb 'returns' and resource 'trending data' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_tools' by focusing on current usage statistics.

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

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

Three explicit use cases are provided: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, and aligning use cases. Guidance on window selection (shorter for hot, longer for steady-state) helps agents choose appropriately.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the requirement for exactly one of event or topic, the internal checks (monotonicity, partition_check), semantic anchor for similarity, and partition filter. It accurately reflects the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with critical requirements, but it is somewhat lengthy due to detailed explanation of both modes and response structure. Could be slightly more 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?

Given the complexity and absence of output schema, the description fairly explains the response format. However, some details about the partition_check and placeholders_filtering could be more explicitly tied to the response.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances understanding by clarifying that event expects a Polymarket slug or URL and topic expects a seed question. It explains the behavioral difference between the two parameters and the failure mode when both are absent.

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 arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It explicitly differentiates between two modes (event and topic) 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: event for single-event mode and topic for cross-event mode. It warns that calling with no arguments will fail, and explains the advantages of cross-event mode over single-event mode.

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, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description richly adds behavioral context: caching (1h KV-level keyed on all knobs), response structure including diagnostics, tradeable-edge knobs, and specific model family gate logic. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured with sections (by_segment, TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS, RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL). It front-loads the core purpose. While verbose, every sentence provides necessary detail for an agent to understand complex logic, earning a 4.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics) and how segments are populated. For a tool with 9 parameters and complex logic, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS' and explaining their roles (e.g., min_liquidity drops thin-book opportunities). This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions, earning a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('Polymarket markets'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on model-driven vs. market price disagreements.

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 usage ('Built for "what should I bet on today"') and provides detailed parameter guidance for when to apply filters. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternative tools (e.g., when to use polymarket_arbitrage instead), and does not state prerequisites 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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description goes far beyond, detailing response structure (leg-by-leg prices, spreads), safety fields (compatibility_warning with two cases, temporal_alignment), and counters for dropped comparisons. It exposes limitations like temporal misalignment and non-equivalent bet shapes causing no arb. 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 relatively long but well-structured, using clear section headings (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS). Every sentence adds value, explaining modes, response fields, and caveats. It could be slightly more concise, but the density of information justifies the length.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure including leg prices, spreads, and safety fields. It covers edge cases like mismatched bet shapes and temporal misalignment. For a complex tool with two modes and multiple response fields, the description is complete and anticipates agent confusion.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds value by explaining the purpose of each parameter in context: the topic parameter for pre-mapped shortcuts and explicit tickers for custom pairings, including example values. This extra context clarifies how the parameters interact and their practical use.

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 computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue comparison. The verb 'computes' and resource 'spread' are specific.

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

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

The description explains two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and when each is appropriate. It warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings, implying the explicit mode for custom pairs is more reliable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_arbitrage, so some guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds scope (by identifier) and behavior of listing all keys when no argument. 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence adds necessary context 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?

Given simple schema and good annotations, description covers behavior, scope, and companion tools completely.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the optional key parameter. Description explains that omitting key lists all saved keys, which 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?

Clearly states it retrieves a value saved via remember or lists all keys. Provides concrete examples (ticker, address, research notes) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning remember and forget.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use (look up context stored earlier) and scope. Mentions pairing with remember/forget for save/delete, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains return fields (source, citation_uri, payload) and the behavior of mark_read (flags events as read for subsequent calls). It also notes polling suitability. 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 front-loaded with the purpose and is informative without being verbose. It could be slightly more concise but every sentence adds value.

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

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

For a tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, filtering, read tracking, and an alternative access method. It falls short by not explaining the unread_only parameter, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 meaning to type, since, and mark_read parameters beyond the schema, explaining filter behavior and read flag effects. It does not explicitly mention limit or unread_only, but the schema descriptions for those are clear, and the default limit (50) is implied.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool pulls fired events from the subscription feed, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subscriptions and recent_changes by focusing on events from subscription feeds.

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 guidance on filtering by type and since, using mark_read for read tracking, and mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice relative to siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral details: it explains the fan-out to multiple APIs, fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews), and soft-fail status for USPTO due to API sunset. It also describes the return structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph that packs a lot of information efficiently, using natural language examples and clear sections. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary use case. Slightly dense but still 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 fully explains the return value (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). It covers failure modes, fallback behavior, and distinguishes from sibling tools. With only 3 parameters and no nested objects, this is complete and covers all necessary 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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter described clearly. The description adds extra value: for `since` it provides both ISO date and relative shorthand examples and recommends '30d' or '1m'. For `value` it gives examples like 'AAPL' and CIK. For `type` it notes only 'company' is supported. This goes beyond the schema but is not essential since the schema already covers basics.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a change feed for a company over a time window, listing specific sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT, GNews, USPTO) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by noting that tool provides static profiles. This meets the criteria of specific verb+resource and differentiation.

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 examples with natural language queries (e.g., "What's new with X") and clearly specifies when to use an alternative: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'. It also explains the `since` parameter format and recommends defaults, giving clear guidance on 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 indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details such as scoping by identifier, persistence differences between authenticated and anonymous sessions, and pairing with other tools. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and it is easy to parse.

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

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers behavior, usage, and pairing comprehensively. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for key and value. The description adds general context about key-value storage but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: saving data for reuse across conversations or sessions. It specifies the action (save data), resource (key-value pair), and distinguishes from siblings 'recall' and 'forget' by mentioning pairing.

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 guidance on when to use: when discovering something worth carrying forward. It also mentions pairing with recall and forget, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, which would improve clarity.

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

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'cascades through several lookup endpoints internally' and 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups', giving insight into its internal complexity. It also details output elements (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, etc.) and mentions auto-disambiguation for company, all beyond what annotations provide.

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-organized: it begins with query examples, then gives usage instruction, then lists supported types and their returns. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose (e.g., multiple examples). Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the most important 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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns for each type, and how to use it. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., ambiguous names), but for most agent use cases this is adequate.

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?

While the input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters, the description enriches meaning: it lists specific entity types and gives concrete examples for the 'value' parameter (e.g., 'AAPL', '0000320193', 'ozempic'). This helps users understand acceptable input formats better than 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 immediately exemplifies user queries and states 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifier'. It distinguishes the tool as the first call when needing an ID from a name, and clarifies supported types (company, drug) with specific return values. This makes the purpose extremely clear and distinct from siblings.

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

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

The description includes explicit guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also provides examples for each entity type, indicating when to use company vs drug. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative sibling tools, which prevents a score of 5.

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

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the tool calls ai_visibility_check for each entity, ranks results by score, and outputs a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's operation and safety.

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

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

The description is three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the high-level function, explaining the process, and providing a use case example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity) and the narrative treatment of the first entity. The tool involves calling another tool and performing aggregation, and the description covers its behavior, input expectations, and output format completely for an agent to use it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds significant value beyond schema: it clarifies that the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, specifies supported models ('workers-ai free default, anthropic requires _apiKey'), gives an example for 'context', and explains the optionality of '_apiKey'. This fully compensates for any schema brevity.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'Probes', 'ranks', 'surfaces') and clearly distinguishes the tool as a comparative/aggregate version of ai_visibility_check. It explicitly states that it compares multiple entities side-by-side and gives a concrete use case question, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool is 'useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and provides an example question. It implies that for single-entity checks one should use ai_visibility_check by stating 'Probes each entity...with ai_visibility_check'. While not explicitly stating when not to use, the guidance is clear and practical.

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 behavioral traits beyond annotations: bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, partial failures degrade gracefully with sources_failed list. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so no contradiction.

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

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

Description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all necessary details. Slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but structure is clear.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return value: summary block with key fields, per-advisory details, links, alternative versions, and notes on sources_failed. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and already describes parameters (npm package name, optional version). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond clarifying that the tool is for npm packages, which is already evident. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the composite purpose: a single call to check npm package advisories, license, version history, and bundle size. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming specific data sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and the unique functionality.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: when agent asks about safety, popularity, or cost of adding an npm package. Also gives when-not-to by limiting to NPM ecosystem and suggesting deps.dev:version for other ecosystems. Mentions graceful degradation and bundlephobia timing.

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 substantial behavioral details beyond annotations: embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), windowing (500-char overlapping), character cap (200K chars), truncation behavior with flagging, and output structure (offsets, similarity scores). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence identifying the core function, followed by usage context and technical details. While slightly verbose, every sentence serves a purpose. It is not overly concise but effectively communicates all necessary information.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores). It also covers technical implementation details, limitations (200K char cap), and pairing with a sibling tool, providing a complete picture for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The tool description largely repeats the schema's param info (e.g., limit range, default). It does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline of 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 performs semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific examples (SEC 10-K, article, long tool result). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining the pairing and when to use each.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and mentions an alternative (ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding). Provides clear context on when and how to use the tool.

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

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: requires OAuth account, delivery channels (feed always on, email/SMS optional), SMS cap (10/day), and phone verification requirement. This adds significant context to the write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then prerequisites, supported types with parameter details, and finally delivery channels. Every sentence provides necessary information without repetition or fluff.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 subscription types, 3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema), the description provides comprehensive coverage: explains each type's parameters, delivery channels, constraints (SMS cap, verification), and return value (subscription id). 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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema: explains each subscription type's filter parameters (e.g., sec_8k items codes, polymarket_edge topic/min_spread_bps) and clarifies delivery constraints (feed always on, email/SMS optional with verification and cap).

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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns the new subscription id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions (list) and unsubscribe (remove) by being the creation tool.

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

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

The description explicitly lists when to use this tool (to create subscriptions), required prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account), and provides detailed guidance on each subscription type's parameters and delivery channels. It implicitly guides when not to use by contrasting with alternative tools like recent_alerts.

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. Description adds behavioral context: returns category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shape, no side effects. No contradictions, and the description complements annotations well.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with key use cases and examples. It could be slightly more concise, but the dense information justifies the 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (category-bucketed questions with tool shapes) and how to use it. For a complex onboarding tool with annotations, this is complete.

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

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

Only one optional parameter (topic) with 100% schema coverage. Description explains it is an optional focus area with example values (finance, pharma, etc.), adding meaning beyond the schema's description.

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

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

The description clearly states it is an onboarding entry point that returns example questions, with specific verb ('suggest_questions') and resource (what Pipeworx can do). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' by positioning as a first-use tool.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools'. Also provides guidance on optional topic filtering, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke.

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 provides behavioral details beyond annotations: ownership is enforced, the row is deactivated not deleted, and historical events stay available via recent_alerts. This aligns with the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent) and adds valuable context.

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

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

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the main action, and the second adds constraints and consequences. Perfectly concise and structured.

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

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, constraints, and side effects. It also links to a sibling tool (recent_alerts) for related functionality.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'id' is already described in the schema. The description adds a minor detail ('returned by subscribe'), which does not significantly enhance 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 action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and specifies the resource (subscription). It distinguishes itself from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions by naming ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior.

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

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

The description explains ownership enforcement and the deactivation effect, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like subscribe or list_subscriptions. However, the context of usage is clear from the description.

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

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds return format (verdict, structured form, citation, delta) and data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), providing full behavioral context 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?

Well-structured with examples and use cases, front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose but efficiently organized, earning 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?

Given one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return values, making it 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 the single parameter with description. Tool description adds context about claim format and domain, enhancing understanding beyond schema alone.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification, lists example queries, and distinguishes from other tools by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use (when checking factual correctness) and specifies domain (company-financial claims), but does not explicitly exclude non-financial claims or provide alternatives.

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