Openrouter

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the default model (free), the optional Anthropic probe (BYO key, direct pass-through), and the return structure (per-model with score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view). This adds critical behavioral context not in annotations, such as cost implications and output shape.

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 core purpose and output. Every sentence adds essential information (purpose, default behavior, return details, use cases). No superfluous words; structure is efficient and scannable.

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

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return structure and use cases. It lacks mention of potential performance or rate limits, but the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) mitigate the need. Overall, it provides sufficient context for invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds extra semantics: which model is the default, that Anthropic requires a key, and that 'context' helps disambiguate. This adds value beyond the schema, raising the score above the 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's purpose: probing LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scoring visibility per model. It specifies the action ('probe'), resource ('LLMs'), and output ('score 0-100'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'compare_entities' by focusing on AI visibility measurement.

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: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It implies when to use (when needing AI visibility) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools like 'entity_profile' or 'deep_research'. Still, the 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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the output format (structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs) and the routing behavior. 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 concise (about 150 words) and well-structured, with a clear front-loaded directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by scope explanation, usage guidelines, and concrete examples. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3,725 tools, 881 sources), the description covers scope, output format, and usage examples well. It lacks details on failure modes or limitations, but the examples and citation mention make it sufficiently complete for an open-world query 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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters adequately documented as aliases for 'question'. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, but the examples provide context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool routes questions to 3,725 tools across 881 sources for factual structured data. It distinguishes from web search and lists many domains and examples, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. Sibling differentiation is not explicit but implied by the tool's unique scope.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to prefer this tool over web search and provides examples of query types. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare directly to sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research, leaving some ambiguity about 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant context: the extra LLM call, extraction behavior, refusal reasons, and return format. 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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then covers behavior, usage, and return format. It is dense but not overly long; every sentence adds value. Slightly could be broken into bullet points for readability, but it's effective.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return object with all fields (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason) and lists refusal reasons. It also covers the extra LLM call and when to use vs ask_pipeworx. The tool's complexity is well-addressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the question parameter and its aliases. No examples or additional details on usage.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, specifying that it extracts answers only from tool results and distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx for casual lookups. The verb 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' with 'grounded' implies reliability, but the description makes the specific purpose explicit.

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

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

Explicit guidance is given: use when answers will be quoted/cited/acted on and the agent must not invent facts, with examples like financial verdicts or legal claims. It also notes to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups and mentions the extra LLM call cost. This clearly differentiates from the sibling.

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

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It details response shapes, error states (low_confidence_match, market_closed_or_inactive), resolution-rule risk, and safety mechanisms. 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, front-loading the purpose and then providing categorized details (classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, edge cases). Every sentence adds value, though some reorganization could improve readability.

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 covers response shapes, error states, resolution-rule risk, and safety. It compensates fully for the missing output schema and provides complete contextual information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the behavior of each parameter (e.g., market input types, depth levels, include_raw effects) and providing examples, enhancing the agent's 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's purpose: researching Polymarket bets by pulling Pipeworx data. It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet + comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges.

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 ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y') and extensive examples of fan-out for different bet types. It also warns about inspecting match confidence and resolution-rule risk. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of citation URIs.

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 somewhat verbose. It front-loads with example queries and instructions, which is good, but could be more concise by trimming repetition (e.g., 'ALWAYS PREFER' emphasis). Every sentence is useful, but some redundancy exists.

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 with two entity types and no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (paired data + citation URIs), sorting, and data sources. It covers what the agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds rich semantics: for 'type' it specifies the exact data pulled for each enum value; for 'values' it explains tickers/CIKs for companies and drug names, plus min/max constraints. This goes 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 it performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs. It uses specific verbs ('compare', 'rank') and distinguishes from siblings like 'entity_profile' by emphasizing batch comparison 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?

The description explicitly instructs to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. It provides example queries and context for when to use it, but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives explicitly.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Keyless', indicating no authentication required, which is valuable beyond annotations. No behavioral contradictions detected.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence plus example and keyword 'Keyless'), front-loading the core function without any redundant or extraneous 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the key attributes compared and access requirements. However, it could be more explicit about the return format, though the phrase 'side-by-side comparison' is generally 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?

The schema already describes 'ids' as an array of 2-5 exact model IDs with an example. The tool description reinforces this but adds limited extra semantic value beyond the schema coverage of 100%.

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 performs side-by-side comparison of pricing, context window, and modality for 2-5 OpenRouter models. Provides an example question that demonstrates its purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_entities' and 'get_model'.

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 for comparing specific model attributes (pricing, context window, modality) and provides a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives among the 40 sibling 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. Description adds significant behavioral context: decomposes into sub-questions, routes to 3,725 tools in parallel, returns findings with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, and gaps. Also states it never invents answers, requires a Pipeworx account, and mentions time estimate (15-60s).

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 long but every sentence adds value. Structured logically: what it does, how it works, when to use, alternatives, requirements, time estimate. 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format (structured findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps). Also covers prerequisites (Pipeworx account), depth levels, and expected time. Fully complete for a complex 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. Description adds value by explaining depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5 default, thorough=8 paid) and clarifying that question should be in natural language and broad/multi-part is fine. Adds 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?

Clearly states it is for grounded multi-source research in one call, specifying the verb 'research' and resource 'multi-source'. Distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting it is for broad or multi-part questions, while ask_pipeworx is for single 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 states when to use ('broad or multi-part questions') and when not to use ('use ask_pipeworx for single lookups'), providing clear context and alternatives. Also gives example query types.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns top-N tools with full schemas ready to call, no second lookup needed. While it does not detail rate limits or pagination, it provides sufficient additional 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 concise (four sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. No redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format: top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas. It also mentions that results are ready to call. This is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists many example domains but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions aliases (task, q, etc.) which is helpful but schema already defines them. Hence score 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 that the tool finds tools by describing data or tasks, with a specific list of domains. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by advising to call it first when many tools are available, making its purpose distinct and 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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' for listed domains, and instructs 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' This clearly guides when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it fans out across multiple sources, patents may soft-fail (USPTO sunset), and news uses a fallback (GDELT→GNews). This is strong but could be slightly more explicit about timeouts or data freshness.

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 but well-organized, starting with use-case examples followed by purpose, outputs, and constraints. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though structuring as a bullet list could improve readability.

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 enumerates all return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and their sources. It covers edge cases (patent sunset, name unsupported) and prerequisites, making it self-contained 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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the schema and adds crucial context: names are not supported and recommends resolve_entity as a prerequisite. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw 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 provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call' with example queries and a detailed list of returned data. It distinguishes itself from chaining multiple single-source lookups, making its 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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and specifies that names are not supported, directing users to use resolve_entity first. Provides 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 destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating 'Delete', such as handling of missing keys or side effects.

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 with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the purpose. 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 simple delete tool with one parameter and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage, but lacks mention of behavior when the key doesn't exist.

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 for the 'key' parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the 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 the tool deletes a memory by key, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by explicitly mentioning deletion and 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 explicit when-to-use scenarios: stale context, task completion, or clearing sensitive data. This helps an agent decide appropriately.

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

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

The description discloses fetching external pages (consistent with openWorldHint), extracting title/description/links, and producing a standard markdown format—all beyond what annotations provide. It aligns with readOnlyHint (no writes), idempotentHint (repeated calls same result), and destructiveHint (false). 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 with no superfluous words. The first sentence states purpose and audience, the second explains the process, and the third lists use cases. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 2 parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it works, and when to use it. The output format is described ('single text blob... standard llms.txt markdown format'), so the agent has sufficient context to invoke and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema: it reiterates 'URL' usage but does not explain 'max_links' semantics beyond what the schema already covers (default 25, max 50). Adequate but not enhancing.

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 action ('Generate a production-ready llms.txt file') and the resource ('any URL'), with a specific output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by targeting a distinct deliverable (llms.txt 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?

The description lists explicit use cases: 'getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing...competitor.' It provides clear context but does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, which would have justified a 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe nature is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context with 'Keyless' (no authentication needed) and elaborates on the output format (normalized pricing, etc.), which helps the agent understand behavior beyond 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is a single run-on sentence listing many details; bullet points or clearer structure could improve readability without adding 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 has one parameter, no output schema, and robust annotations, the description covers the main return fields (pricing, context window, modality, etc.). It does not mention return format or error conditions, but for a simple read operation, completeness 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's description of the 'id' parameter is already explicit with examples. The description's example ('anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5') echoes the schema without adding new semantic meaning. 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full details for one OpenRouter model by id', and explicitly lists the specific details returned (pricing, context window, etc.). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_models and compare_models.

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

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

While the description implies usage for a single model via 'by id', it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_models for all models, compare_models for comparison). No exclusion criteria are provided.

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 'Keyless' (no authentication required) and mentions sorting cheapest-first. These provide useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though 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 with three sentences, each adding value: what the tool does, filter options, and sorting behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 fields (pricing, context, modality) and filter parameters. It lacks details on pagination or total count, but the limit parameter addresses this. Sufficient for a listing 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 description coverage is 100% with detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., search: 'case-insensitive substring match'). The description only summarizes filter options without adding new details, so it fails to add significant 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 lists LLMs from OpenRouter catalog with normalized pricing, context windows, and modality. It specifies the scope (~340 models across all major providers) and differentiates from siblings like get_model and compare_models by being a broad listing 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 explains when to use it: for browsing/filtering models by search, free-only, minimum context, or modality. It implies sorting and no auth. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_model for a single model, so it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by specifying default behavior (active only) and return fields, without contradicting annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence describes action and output format; second provides usage guidance. Ideal 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, default behavior, return fields, and usage guidance.

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 parameter 'include_inactive' with 100% description. The description implies the default (active only) but does not explicitly discuss the parameter, so 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource, and lists return fields. It implicitly distinguishes from 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides both usage context and alternative scenarios.

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 annotations: rate-limited to 5 per day, free, doesn't count against quota, team reads digests daily. Annotations already indicate non-destructive write, but description clarifies limitations and usage policy.

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?

Five sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose, second gives usage scenarios, third provides formatting tips, fourth explains impact, and fifth mentions rate limits/quota. 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?

The description covers all needed aspects: purpose, when to use, how to format, rate limits, quota, and impact. No output schema is expected for a feedback submission tool. It is complete given the tool's simplicity and sibling 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%, but the description adds value by explaining the type enum in plain language and advising on message specificity and length (1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max). This helps the agent understand expected input format 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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies the verb (tell/send) and resource (feedback to Pipeworx team). Among siblings, no other tool serves this purpose, making it well-distinguished.

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: for bugs, features, data gaps, praise. Provides context on what not to do (don't paste end-user prompt) and mentions rate limits (5 per identifier per day) and quota exemption. This offers clear guidance on usage scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: data comes from CF analytics-engine, no PII is included, and caching varies by window (5min-1h). No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with the main function first, followed by bullet points and technical details. It is reasonably concise but could be slightly tighter (e.g., 'Self-aggregating signal' is redundant).

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 no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the output (top tools, packs, volume), data source, privacy, caching, and use cases. No gaps given the complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter 'window'. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the enum values by explaining that shorter windows surface current trends while longer windows show steady-state demand.

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 'Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window' with specific time windows (24h, 7d, 30d). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'discover_tools' by focusing on trending usage data.

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

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

The description provides three explicit use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choice, aligning use case with agent needs). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or offer alternatives from the sibling list.

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 operation; the description adds extensive detail: monotonicity checks, partition sum, semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity ≥0.30), partition filter (>20% placeholder returns null), fill check with realizable edge vs theoretical edge. 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?

While long, the description is well-structured with clear sections (requirement, modes, filter, fill check) and front-loaded key info. Every sentence adds value, though some minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 complex tool with two modes, detailed checks, and no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (opportunities, partition_check, fill_check) and edge cases. It is complete for agent understanding.

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. The description adds context: event accepts slugs or full URLs, topic accepts seed questions, and explains the behavioral difference between modes. This enriches the schema beyond the 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 clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between event mode and topic mode with specific examples, 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?

Explicitly requires one of `event` or `topic`, warns that no args fails, and recommends event for specific markets and topic for cross-event scanning. It differentiates when to use each and mentions 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?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are already provided. The description adds extensive behavioral details: three model families, caching at KV level per knob, diagnostics for empty segments, tradeable-edge filters, and handling of Fed bets. 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 comprehensive but verbose, spanning multiple paragraphs. It is structured with clear sections, but some technical details could be condensed. The front-loading of purpose is good, but overall conciseness is moderate.

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

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

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains output structure (by_segment, diagnostics), edge calculation, caching, and all knobs. The lack of an output schema is compensated by detailed description of response fields.

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 explains parameters in context (e.g., tradeable-edge knobs) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It reinforces the purpose but does not elevate semantics.

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 scans Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It provides a specific use case ('what should I bet on today') and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on discovery of tradeable edges.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets') but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. It provides clear context for its intended 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 declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details: snapshot writes on cache-miss, 60-day TTL, decay computed from daily closes, and gaps meaning no scan. This goes beyond annotations, though some minor aspects like authorization are not mentioned.

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 informative but somewhat verbose. It is well-structured with sections for arguments, response, and limits, but could be 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 no output schema, the description fully details the output structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and explains each field's meaning and computation. It also covers limitations and data 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?

Both parameters are fully described in schema (100% coverage). The description adds default values, clamping range, and the meaning of 'window' as snapshot family. This provides useful context beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question about edge duration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical persistence rather than current edges.

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 explains when to use the tool (to understand edge duration and decay) and contrasts it with a fresh edge, indicating when alternative tools might be better. It provides context on the meaning of edge age.

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, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: 'walks the ladder and returns top_of_book... a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill)' and warns about partial baskets causing directional risk. 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 information-dense with clear structure (mode labels, bold key terms). Every sentence adds value, though some elaboration on risk is slightly verbose. Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded with the core 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates all return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict, theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk). It also explains edge cases like forced directional risk, making it complete 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 description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that side defaults to 'auto' in basket mode, that size_usd has different interpretations for buys vs sells and for basket vs single-market, and that market and event are mutually exclusive. It also clarifies the default values and clamps.

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 title and description clearly state the tool's function: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by stating 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.'

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: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains the consequences of not using it: 'theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position.'

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?

Disclosures beyond annotations: safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross_type) explain when spreads are invalid or irrelevant, contradicting none of 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?

Description is dense and informative but could be structured into clearer sections (e.g., modes, safety fields) for easier scanning. Still, every sentence adds value and it is 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?

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly explains return fields (leg prices, top_spreads_pp, safety fields) and edge cases, providing complete context for an agent to 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, and description adds context like the exact list of topic values, example tickers, and behavior of explicit overrides, enhancing the schema.

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

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

Description clearly states it computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, distinguishing from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges which focus on intra-venue or different aspects.

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 explains two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers), details safety fields and when spreads are meaningful, and warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings, guiding correct 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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds scoping detail ('Scoped to your identifier') and listing behavior ('omit the key 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 primary action. Every sentence adds value. No extraneous 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 read-only tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, scope, and relationships to siblings. 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%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats schema info (omit key to list) but adds context about scoping and examples, providing marginal extra 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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember' and 'list all saved keys'. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (saved values). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remember and forget by explicitly pairing with them.

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?

Description explicitly says when to use: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier'. It also notes that omitting key lists all keys. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear, and sibling tools cover mutation.

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 (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), description explains persisted feed, returned fields, and mark_read behavior. No contradictions; adds value such as polling suitability.

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, efficiently communicates purpose, parameters, and behavior. Could be slightly more structured but front-loads key information.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description fully explains return fields, filtering, mark_read effect, and alternative endpoint. Comprehensive for a read-only alert retrieval 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; description adds context for 'mark_read' and 'since' usage, but does not cover 'unread_only' explicitly. Adds modest 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 recent alerts from a subscription feed with specific verb 'Pull fired events'. It identifies the resource and return data but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Provides explicit usage context: filtering by type and since, setting mark_read, polling, and an alternative endpoint for scripts. However, it lacks when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to other 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, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral detail: fans out to multiple sources, details fallback logic, mentions USPTO API sunset, and explains 'since' format. 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 detailed yet each sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads with query examples. Slightly longer than necessary but not verbose.

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 return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). Covers multiple data sources, edge cases like fallback and USPTO sunset, and provides usage guidance. Complete for its 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%, but the description adds meaning: explains 'since' accepts ISO date or relative shorthand with examples, suggests '30d' or '1m' for monitoring, clarifies 'value' can be ticker or CIK, and notes 'type' only supports 'company'.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a change feed for a company over a time window, with example queries like 'latest on Y' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'entity_profile'. It specifies the verb+resource and scope comprehensively.

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 this tool (recent changes) and when to use 'entity_profile' instead (static profile). Also describes fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews, and mentions when USPTO is unavailable.

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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds crucial context: memory is key-value scoped by identifier, persistent for authenticated users, 24-hour for anonymous. 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Each 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 2 required params, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description explains memory persistence, scope, and pairing with siblings, making it fully complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both key and value. Description adds usage examples like 'subject_property' and clarifies value can be any text, slightly 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 saves data for later reuse, with a specific verb 'Save' and resource 'data'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' 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 tells when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. Mentions scope (scoped by identifier) and persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users. Refers to siblings 'recall' and 'forget'.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already provide safety info. Description adds value by explaining internal cascading lookups and detailing exact output per entity type (ticker, CIK, citation for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand for drug). 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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with example queries, then purpose, then type details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly streamlined. It is efficient for the 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return formats for both entity types. It covers purpose, usage, input semantics, and output behavior. For a tool with moderate complexity, it is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining what each type returns and giving concrete examples for the value parameter (e.g., 'ozempic', 'metformin'). This enriches understanding without being verbose.

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 names to canonical identifiers, with specific examples (ticker, CIK, RxCUI). It distinguishes from siblings by being the go-to for ID lookup, and no other sibling tool appears to duplicate this function.

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 FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also mentions it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, giving efficiency context. Does not list alternatives, but this is appropriate as it's unique.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds value by explaining the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. 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?

Two sentences without waste, front-loaded with main purpose and usage example. 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). The tool has 4 params, moderate complexity, and the description fully covers behavior and use case.

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 informative descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds context: entities are brand/business/product names, first is 'subject', and explains interaction between models and _apiKey. However, the schema already does most of the work, so description adds moderate additional meaning.

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, probes each with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces which is most/least recognized. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison).

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

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

The description provides clear usage context: competitive AI-marketing audits with an example question. It implies when to use (comparing multiple entities) and implicitly suggests not to use for single entity checks (use ai_visibility_check instead). No explicit exclusions or alternatives listed, 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavior about partial failures, timing (5-30s first measurement), and graceful degradation via sources_failed list.

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 but front-loaded with purpose and tightly packed with useful details. Every sentence adds value; could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains 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?

Compensates for missing output schema by listing exact return fields (summary block, advisory detail, links, alternatives). Also covers error handling and fallback behavior. Complete for a 2-param scanning 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 descriptions. Description adds context that 'package' is npm name (scoped accepted) and 'version' defaults to latest, but does not significantly expand 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 tool does a composite check for npm packages using deps.dev and bundlephobia. Specific verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency' with concrete use case. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning NPM ecosystem and aggregate nature.

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 an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small"' and provides exclusion for non-NPM ecosystems (PyPI, Maven, etc.), referencing alternative 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?

The description details the algorithm (BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine over 500-char windows), input cap (200K chars with truncation flag), and output format (passages with offsets and scores). It adds significant behavioral context beyond 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?

Five sentences efficiently pack purpose, examples, usage, algorithm, and pairing. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds unique 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the output nature (passages, offsets, scores) and limits (200K chars). It covers inputs, algorithm, and pairing, providing sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats schema info for text and query but adds no new parameter-specific semantics. The algorithm context indirectly helps but does not enhance parameter 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 performs semantic search inside a previously fetched record, using specific examples like SEC filings. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing it works on already-pulled text and returns passages with offsets, which differentiates it from full-document processing 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 says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. It provides clear context but does not explicitly list when not to use, though 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.

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

The description adds significant behavior beyond annotations: OAuth requirement, return value, delivery channel constraints (sms cap, webhook auto-disable), and type-specific parameter examples. 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 packed with useful information and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat dense but not overly verbose; could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list for types) but is efficient 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, type-specific params, delivery constraints, and important behavioral notes (webhook secret returned once). It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description provides rich context for each parameter: type-specific examples with field meanings (e.g., 'items:["5.02"] = officer change'), and delivery channel behaviors (webhook signing, sms verification).

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 ('Create a proactive monitoring subscription'), the resource ('live-data event stream'), and the return value ('Returns the new subscription id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unsubscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

The description explicitly states the prerequisite (Pipeworx OAuth account) and provides detailed examples for each subscription type and delivery channel. It implies when not to use (anonymous/BYO cannot persist). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'unsubscribe' or 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: it returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes, drawn from a live catalog. 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 somewhat lengthy (3 sentences) but every part is functional: it starts with search phrases, then describes the output, then usage. It is front-loaded with the common questions, but could be slightly more condensed.

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 return format (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shapes). It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics completely for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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 for the 'topic' parameter, listing specific focus areas like 'finance', 'pharma', etc. The description adds more explicit focus area values and clarifies that omitting the parameter gives a cross-category spread, going slightly 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 starts with trigger phrases like 'what can I ask Pipeworx?' and clearly states it is the onboarding entry point. It lists specific categories and explains the return value (example questions with tool+argument shape). It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you'.

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

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

Explicitly provides two usage scenarios: call with no arguments for full spread, or pass a topic (e.g., 'finance', 'pharma') to focus. Also states to use this tool first when the agent doesn't know Pipeworx's capabilities, giving clear guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive idempotent mutation; description adds that deactivation preserves historical events, enhancing transparency 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words, perfectly structured for 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?

Covers ownership, effect, and historical data preservation; lacks mention of return value or success indicator, but fine for a simple mutation tool without output schema.

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

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

Single parameter 'id' with full schema coverage; description adds minimal extra meaning by noting it's the id returned by subscribe, but baseline is 3 given 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?

Description states 'Cancel a subscription by id.' with specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('subscription'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Explicitly states ownership enforcement and that the row is deactivated (not deleted), guiding when to use (own subscriptions) and what happens, with alternative historical data path mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds significant behavioral context: the underlying data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), the return structure (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta), and the fact that it replaces multiple sequential calls. 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 informative but slightly long; it front-loads with examples and usage, then details scope and return. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more concise without losing clarity. It earns a 4 for good structure and efficiency.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers all necessary context: when to use, what types of claims, what it returns (verdict types, citation, delta), and the underlying data source. It fully compensates for the lack of output schema.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'claim' described in detail. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, explaining that it accepts natural-language factual claims with examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 against authoritative sources. It provides example queries and specifies the domain (company-financial claims for US public companies). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, making it a specific and well-defined 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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and gives a clear usage context. It also defines the scope (company-financial claims). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools among the siblings for cases outside scope.

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