Osf

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: default model, API key requirement for Anthropic, and result structure. Annotations already indicate idempotent and read-only, which description does not contradict.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. 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 outlines return structure (per-model score + combined view). Covers parameters, use cases, and limitations sufficiently for a non-nested 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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds marginal value. Provides default model and API key flow but does not significantly expand on schema info.

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 verb ('probe') and resource ('LLMs'), specifies the output (visibility score 0-100), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on AI visibility audits.

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 mentions use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and default vs. paid model, but does not provide exclusions or when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, open-world behavior. Description adds that it routes questions to the appropriate tool, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. No contradictions.

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

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

Front-loaded with key guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). Some redundancy in listing examples and alternatives, but each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but well-organized.

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

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

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and 31 sibling tools, the description is very complete: specifies scope, usage guidance, examples, and alternative tools. No critical 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 covers 100% of parameters (6 aliases for question). Description reinforces that the parameter accepts natural language questions and provides examples of valid inputs.

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

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

Description clearly states it answers factual questions using 4,774 tools across 1,242 sources, returning structured answers with citations. Distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by specifying when to use each.

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

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

Explicitly recommends preferring it over web search, provides when to use (factual questions, 'what is', 'look up', etc.), and when to step up to alternatives (hallucination-resistant single answer or broad multi-part questions). Includes examples.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; description adds critical detail: extracts ONLY from tool results, returns structured refusal reasons, and mentions cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Front-loaded with purpose and key trade-off, then details refused reasons and use cases. No redundant sentences; 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 fully explains return format (answer, evidence, confidence, source, refusal reasons) and covers behavior for success and failure. Sufficient for a complex tool with 4,774 sources.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all aliases documented; description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond stating aliases ('question' has aliases: q, text, etc.). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states specific verb+resource: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' Distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing extraction only from tool results and refusal on uncertainty.

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

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

Explicitly advises when to use (high-stakes, quoted/cited answers) and when to prefer ask_pipeworx (casual lookups), including a clear trade-off (extra LLM call).

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral details: resolution, classification, fan-out, safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuit, closed market handling), spread tradeability, and resolution-rule risk. 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 very long (multiple paragraphs) and includes detailed sections. While well-structured and all content is valuable, it is not concise for an AI agent. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, but subsequent details could be more terse.

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

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

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It covers result.market, result.analysis, result.evidence, resolver contract, parent event extractor, news fields, and safety mechanisms comprehensively. For a complex tool with many edge cases, this is complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value: explains the three input formats for 'market', the difference between 'quick' and 'thorough' for 'depth', and the rationale for 'include_raw' (summarized vs full payload). This exceeds 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's purpose: to research a Polymarket bet by pulling relevant Pipeworx data. It specifies input formats (slug, URL, question text) and provides example use cases. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or ask_pipeworx, though the purpose is distinct enough from context.

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

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

The description gives explicit usage scenarios: 'Use for 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', or 'is there edge in Z''. It also notes when the tool short-circuits (low confidence, closed markets). However, it does not mention when to use alternative tools, limiting the guidance for selection.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description adds context beyond annotations, explaining data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and that results are sorted by primary metric. It also mentions returning paired data with citation URIs, providing transparency about behavior.

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

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

The description is detailed (~150 words) but efficiently communicates purpose, usage, and behavior. It front-loads example queries and uses a concise structure. A minor reduction in examples might improve conciseness, but current form is clear and valuable.

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 reasonably covers return format (paired data, citation URIs). It also addresses entity-specific metric details. However, it could briefly mention the structure of the response (e.g., table format) for completeness. Overall, the context is sufficient 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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the 'type' enum values (company pulls financial data, drug pulls adverse-event/trial data) and specifying the format for 'values' (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug) with examples and constraints (min/max items). This goes beyond what the schema alone 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?

Description clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs, specifying data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs) and metrics (revenue, net income, etc. for companies; adverse-event counts, etc. for drugs). It distinguishes from sequential lookups by explicitly stating 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and noting it replaces 8-15 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 provides strong guidance on when to use this tool, with example queries like 'compare X and Y', 'rank these companies', and 'head to head'. It emphasizes preference over sequential lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single-entity lookups or when detailed financial data is not needed).

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

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

Discloses account requirement, response format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, gaps), parallel decomposition across 4,774 tools, typical 15-60s wait time, and that it does not perform open-web search. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds rich context without contradiction.

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

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured, front-loading critical info (account requirement, alternative). Each sentence serves a purpose, though some redundancy could be trimmed. It balances detail with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (parallel research, many sources), the description covers account auth, input parameters, return format, timing, limitations (gaps for uncovered topics), and usage guidance. No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains what to expect.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'thorough' requires paid plan, question decomposition), but does not significantly enhance parameter 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 performs grounded multi-source research across over 1200 structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets and returning a findings packet. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by specifying it is for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, not open-web search.

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

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

Explicitly provides when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not to (single lookup: use ask_pipeworx; breaking news: prefer ask_pipeworx). Also addresses account requirements and paid tier for 'thorough' depth, and suggests alternative tools for different 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This does not contradict annotations and provides transparency about what the tool returns.

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

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

The description is moderately long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, domain list, return value details, and usage guidance. Could be slightly tightened (e.g., the alias list could be in the schema), but overall it is well-structured and efficient given 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, many aliases), the description is complete. It explains exactly what the tool returns (top tools with schemas), when to use it (first when many tools), and how to use the query parameter (natural language with aliases). No output schema needed because the description covers return format.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant value by explaining the central 'query' parameter as a natural language description, listing aliases (task, q, search, description), and providing concrete examples like 'analyze housing market trends' and 'look up FDA drug approvals.' This clarifies usage beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists numerous domains and explains that it returns relevant tools with schemas. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_preprints, which search within data rather than discover tools.

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

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

The description explicitly advises to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, helping the agent decide between exploring tools versus directly querying data.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context such as the patents API soft-failing, news fallback, and specific return fields, which goes 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 verbose but front-loaded with example queries. It includes redundant details (e.g., type enum) and could be trimmed without losing key information. It earns its length with useful details but lacks 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and notes limitations (patents soft-fail, names not supported). It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds that type only supports 'company' (though enum conveys this) and clarifies that value can be ticker or zero-padded CIK, not names. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs like 'profile' and 'research' and clearly states the tool provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company'. It lists numerous example queries and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_entity by specifying that names are not supported.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and advises to use resolve_entity first if only a name is provided. This 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 indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description confirms deletion and adds context about clearing 'sensitive data', which provides additional behavioral insight.

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 the main purpose. No unnecessary words.

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

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context, including usage guidance and relation to siblings.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter with description 'Memory key to delete'). The description does not add much beyond the schema, 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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('previously stored memory by key'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with 'remember' and 'recall'.

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

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

It explicitly says when to use: 'context is stale, task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It doesn't give exclusions, but the context is clear and it mentions pairing with related tools.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by detailing the process (fetch page, extract title/links, emit markdown) and output format (single text blob). No contradictions.

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

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

Three sentences: purpose, process, use cases. No filler, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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

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

No output schema, but description fully explains output as a single text blob in standard markdown format, ready to place at site-root. Covers what the agent needs to know 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. Description does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond the schema (e.g., url must be full, max_links default/max). Adequate but not exceptional.

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 verb (generate), specific resource (llms.txt file), and scope (any URL). Lists concrete use cases (client indexing, own project, competitor audit) that distinguish it from sibling tools, none of which generate llms.txt.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with three listed use cases. Does not mention when to avoid or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns metadata for public projects only, and lists the specific fields returned. 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?

One sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, input format, and return fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource.

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

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

Given one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the input and return fields. Could mention output format explicitly, but it's implied.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. The id format example is also present in the schema description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool fetches metadata for a single public research project by OSF id, lists the return fields, and gives an example id format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_projects.

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 use when you have a specific OSF id for a public project. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the context of siblings provides differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying default behavior (active only) and listing fields returned, which goes beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence explains the main action and outputs; the second provides usage guidance. Very efficient.

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

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

Adequate for a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. Could be slightly improved by noting that the response is a list, but not necessary.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning to the single parameter 'include_inactive' beyond what is in 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?

Clear verb 'list' and resource 'subscriptions' with scope 'caller's active'. The description also lists return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe'.

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 two use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'. Provides clear context and implies alternative actions (unsubscribe for cancellation).

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

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

Discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), free usage, and that it doesn't count against tool-call quota. Annotations do not contradict these statements, and the description adds valuable context beyond the boolean hints.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads purpose, then provides usage guidelines, behavioral notes, and parameter tips. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, one nested object, no output schema), the description completely covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral constraints. No gaps in aiding agent selection or 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context on how to structure feedback (be specific, don't paste prompt), which enhances 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 that the tool sends feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, missing features, or praise. It specifies the resource (Pipeworx tools/packs) and verb (tell). No sibling tool duplicates 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 lists when to use each feedback type (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and provides a caution not to paste end-user prompts. Also mentions the team reads digests daily and signal affects roadmap, giving clear context for when to submit.

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

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

Description discloses that data is self-aggregating from CF analytics-engine, no PII, and caching behavior (5min-1h). This adds value beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) 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?

Five sentences, well-structured, no fluff. Bullet-like numbered list improves readability. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given one optional parameter and no output schema, description explains returned data (top tools, packs, call volume) and caching. Could specify output format but sufficient for most uses.

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%; description reiterates window options and adds contextual guidance (shorter for hot, longer for steady-state). This is adequate but not transformative.

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

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

Description clearly states it returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window (24h, 7d, 30d). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on aggregate trending data rather than specific entity or search queries.

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

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

Three explicit use cases are listed: discovering hot data sources, confirming a canonical tool, and aligning use case with agent needs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

Description details algorithms (monotonicity, partition sum), response fields, fill check logic, and edge cases (Jaccard similarity filter, placeholder filter). Annotations already mark it as read-only/idempotent, and the description adds significant behavioral context without contradiction.

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

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

The description is dense and well-organized with clear sections, but slightly verbose. Every sentence earns its place, though minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing 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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by fully explaining all response components (opportunities, partition_check, fill_check). It covers all modes, filtering logic, and integration with sibling tools, making it 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%, but the description adds substantial meaning: explains the effect of each parameter, example values (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026'), and how the tool behaves differently based on which parameter is passed.

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 using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between three modes (no args, event, topic) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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 on when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for per-event checks, topic for cross-event scans. It also warns against trading when realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 and directs to 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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds extensive behavioral details: three segments (MODEL_DRIVEN, STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE, CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT), edge calculation net of slippage, Kelly fractions, caching, diagnostics, and limitations like Fed bets excluded. 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, diving into intricate model details (e.g., lognormal barrier, GDELT ratios, per-sport alpha). While structured with sections, its length may overwhelm agents. It could be more concise while retaining 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, three segments, multiple edge concepts) and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (by_segment, diagnostics), caching behavior, and limitations (e.g., Fed bets, 24h-move warning). 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS' and providing contextual advice (e.g., 'Bump for very thin partitions' for slippage_pp). This extra context elevates the score to 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans top Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It is built for 'what should I bet on today' and distinguishes from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' by focusing on Pipeworx data disagreement.

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

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

The description implies usage for discovering betting opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'polymarket_arbitrage' or 'bet_research', leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant context: it reads from snapshots, has a 60-day TTL, decay numbers are from daily closes (not intraday), and explains gaps in data. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and contains detailed response structure. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and 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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their contents. It also mentions limits (TTL, data start). Missing error cases or edge conditions, but complete for expected use.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('days', 'window'). The description adds defaults (14 for days, '1wk' for window), a maximum (30 for days), and clarifies 'window' as snapshot family. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical trends 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 implies usage by contrasting fresh vs old edges and explaining the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like 'polymarket_edges'. Guidance is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context about what the tool checks (order book depth), returns (fill details, verdict), and warns about risks (partial fills leading to unhedged positions). No contradictions. Slight deduction because annotations already provide strong safety profile.

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

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

The description is detailed but well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then requirements, then mode-specific details, then usage recommendation. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat lengthy. However, given the tool's complexity, the length is justified, and it remains front-loaded with essential 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?

The description is highly complete given no output schema. It lists all returned fields for both single-market and basket modes, explains the verdict (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and highlights key risks. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and how to interpret results without further documentation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds default values (size_usd default 1000, side default auto in basket mode), range clamp (10–1,000,000), and clarifies the meaning of size_usd in different modes (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional). This adds significant value over schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking realizable vs theoretical edge against live order book depth. It distinguishes single-market and basket modes, and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, telling agents when to use this tool instead.

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 and when-not-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains the requirement of passing either 'market' or 'event', and details the behavior in each mode.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by detailing safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross_type/subtype) and the conditions under which spreads are meaningful. It honestly states that real spreads are rarer than the shortcut list suggests, which adds significant transparency.

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

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

The description is thorough but not overly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and modes, then adds safety details. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could be slightly shortened without loss of critical content.

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

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

Given the complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the response structure, safety fields, and edge cases. An agent can fully understand how to interpret the tool's output and when to trust the spreads.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context about the two modes and the list of topic shortcuts, and explains the overriding behavior for explicit tickers. This extra context raises 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 defines the tool as computing cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes between two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and specifies the response content (leg-by-leg prices and matched spreads). This is specific and differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage.

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

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

The description explicitly explains both usage modes and provides cautionary notes (e.g., most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warnings). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use the topic shortcuts vs explicit tickers.

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

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

Adds important behavioral context beyond annotations, such as scoping to identifier and relationship with remember/forget. No contradiction with annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive).

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with action, zero wasted words. Clearly structured with usage and pairing info.

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 all essential aspects: action, scoping, relationship to siblings, usage context. Lacks explicit return format but implied effectively.

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

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

Single parameter 'key' with description that explains omission lists all keys, adding value beyond schema description. Schema coverage is 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?

Uses specific verbs 'Retrieve' and 'list' with clear resource 'value' or 'keys'. Distinguishes from sibling tools remember and forget by name and description.

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 (look up stored context) and provides context on scoping and pairing with remember/forget. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools like search or list operations.

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral details like mark_read flag effects and that polling is acceptable, complementing annotations without contradiction.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It covers key details without fluff, though the first two sentences have slight redundancy. Still, it is well-structured.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description explains return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and parameter usage. It also mentions an alternative access method. Lacks pagination details but is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples (e.g., type: 'sec_8k') and explains mark_read, but does not mention unread_only. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 pulls fired events from a subscription feed, returning recent alerts with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique function, though no explicit sibling comparison is needed.

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 usage context by mentioning that polling works fine and points to an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards. It implicitly guides when to use this tool, but could be more explicit about when not to use.

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

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

The description discloses internal fan-out behavior to multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO), including fallback logic (GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited or 5xx) and soft-failure for USPTO. This significantly adds context beyond the annotations, which only indicate read-only and idempotent.

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

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

The description is well-structured and efficient. It front-loads with example queries to convey purpose, then logically flows into behavior, parameter details, return format, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). It covers sources, fallback, failure modes, and alternative tool, making it fully 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?

Although the input schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), the description enhances understanding by providing concrete examples for `since` (e.g., '7d', '30d', '1y') and recommending a default. It also clarifies that `value` accepts ticker or CIK, adding practical usage guidance.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool's purpose as a change feed for a company within a time window, with multiple example queries ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `entity_profile`, which provides static profiles.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool vs the alternative `entity_profile` (for static profile). It also provides example query patterns and parameter recommendations (e.g., 'Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring').

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

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

Annotations indicate write operation, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds session/persistence scoping (authenticated vs anonymous) but does not explicitly state overwrite behavior. Otherwise, it aligns 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 concise (4 sentences) with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, scoping, pairing. No wasted words.

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

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

Given 2 parameters fully described, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers when and how to use, persistence duration, and pairing. It does not mention limits on keys or values, but is otherwise 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 has 100% coverage with examples in both schema and description. The description's examples (ticker, address) overlap with schema, so it adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since description matches schema without supplementing.

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 reuse across conversations/sessions, with concrete examples (ticker, address, preference). It distinguishes itself from siblings like recall and forget by explicitly mentioning pairing.

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

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

The description specifies when to use: when discovering something worth carrying forward to avoid re-lookup. It also provides scoping details (per identifier, persistent vs 24-hour) and pairs with 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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, replaces 2-3 manual lookups, and details output fields (ticker, CIK, company_name, citation URI for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand for drug).

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

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

The description is moderately long but efficient, front-loading with example queries and immediately stating the primary use case. Each sentence adds distinct information; minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall well-structured.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values in detail. The tool is complex with two entity types, and the description covers both thoroughly. Annotations and context signals are rich, making the description complete for agent selection and 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by explaining valid inputs per entity type (e.g., ticker, CIK, or name for company; brand or generic name for drug) and mentions auto-disambiguation, providing value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs ('resolve', 'look up') and nouns ('name to canonical/official identifier'), provides concrete examples ('What's the ticker for…', 'find the CIK for…'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings as the go-to for name-to-ID conversion.

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

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

Explicitly states 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and details supported entity types and returns. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds transparency by explaining that the tool internally calls ai_visibility_check and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and 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?

The description is three concise sentences. The first sentence defines the core action, the second explains the internal mechanism, and the third provides a concrete use case. No 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does so by listing score, confidence, and signal density. It could more explicitly mention the entity limit (2-8 from schema) and that the first entity is treated as the subject, but these are covered in the schema. Overall sufficiently complete for the complexity level.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema; it repeats some information. Therefore a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side'. It specifies the method (probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and ranks by score) and distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic). No ambiguity.

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

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

The description provides a clear usage context ('useful for competitive AI-marketing audits') with an example query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like compare_entities or state when not to use this tool, though the implication is clear for multi-entity comparison.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds critical behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, sources_failed will list failures. 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 dense yet concise, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Structure is logical: purpose, usage, behavior, return structure.

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 format (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives) and error handling (sources_failed). Covers all aspects needed for effective agent use.

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 value by explaining scoped packages are accepted and version defaults to latest. This goes beyond schema but does not provide extensive additional semantics for each parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a composite check for adding an npm package, aggregating data from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the NPM ecosystem restriction and noting alternatives for other ecosystems.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: when an agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost. Also notes limitations: NPM only in v1, with alternatives mentioned for other package managers.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data source (OSF), that it is public and keyless, and that the API can be slow. No contradiction.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential action and then provides return fields and a caveat.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, data source, return fields, and a performance note, covering all necessary context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states 'search public preprints by title', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_projects' by focusing on preprints. The return fields are listed, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description mentions 'Keyless public data; the API can be slow', which gives context on when to use (no auth needed) and a performance caveat. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open world. Description adds 'Keyless public data' (no auth needed) and 'API can be slow' (performance warning), which are helpful behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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

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

Two concise sentences covering purpose, returns, and constraints, with no superfluous words. Well 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?

Identifies return fields despite no output schema, mentions public data and slow API. Lacks pagination/ordering info but is otherwise complete for a search tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'by title' matches the query param description).

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

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

The description clearly states it searches public research projects by title and lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_preprints (which searches preprints).

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

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

It mentions 'Keyless public data' and 'API can be slow', providing some usage context, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_preprints or search_within.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds crucial behavioral details: embedding model (BGE-base-en), window size (500-char), similarity metric (cosine), character limit (200K chars with truncation flag), and output format (passages with offsets and scores). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds information—usage guidance, pairing, technical details, and limits. Could be slightly shorter, but no redundancy.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (passages with character offsets and similarity scores) and internal mechanisms (embeddings, windowing, cap). This gives the agent a complete mental model for invoking and interpreting 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 covers all 3 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by clarifying text max size, giving natural-language query examples, and confirming limit range. It reinforces schema descriptions and adds practical usage hints.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record. It specifies the action ('semantic search'), the resource ('text inside a record'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' Also explains the workflow: fetch with gateway, then use this tool to retrieve relevant passages, and pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded responses.

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

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

The description discloses behavioral traits: subscription creation returns an ID, requires authentication, delivery channels have constraints (phone verification, SMS cap, webhook auto-disable on failures). However, it implies each call creates a new subscription (non-idempotent), contradicting the idempotentHint annotation.

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 dense paragraph but well-structured: purpose, requirement, types with examples, delivery channels. Every sentence adds value, though could be broken into bullet points for easier reading.

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

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

Given the complexity (multiple types, delivery options, prerequisites) and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers inputs, behavior, and constraints. It could mention that subscriptions are persistent and manageable via siblings, but overall sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples for each subscription type's params and detailed explanation of delivery channel options and constraints.

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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns the new subscription ID. It lists specific subscription types with examples, distinguishing it from siblings like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts.

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

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

The description explicitly states the requirement for a Pipeworx OAuth account and that anonymous/BYO cannot persist subscriptions. It provides examples for each type and delivery channel limitations (SMS cap, phone verification). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's additional context about returning categorized example questions with tool calls adds value. No contradictions; behavior is well-documented beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with common user questions and efficiently packs usage guidelines, output details, and examples. Slightly verbose but each sentence serves a purpose, earning a high score.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (categorized examples with tool+argument shapes) and how to use it. Contextual completeness is excellent for this tool's role as an onboarding assistant.

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 topic parameter. The description adds significant meaning by explaining that omitting topic gives full spread and listing example values (finance, pharma, etc.), which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool is the onboarding entry point for learning what Pipeworx can do, returning example questions with exact tool and argument shapes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discover_tools by specifying its role in helping users get started.

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

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

The description explicitly advises to use this tool first when the agent does not know what Pipeworx can do, and provides clear instructions on calling with no arguments for a broad overview or passing a topic for focus. It also references related meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, etc.) as alternatives.

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

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

Adds context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, deactivation vs deletion, and historical availability. 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant information.

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

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

For a simple cancellation tool with no output schema, the description explains the effect (deactivation, historical retention) adequately. Sufficient for agent 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%, and the description adds minor context ('returned by subscribe') but does not elaborate on format or constraints 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 'Cancel a subscription by id,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools 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?

States ownership enforcement as a usage condition and explains the deactivation behavior. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns a verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta. It also reveals it uses SEC EDGAR + XBRL and the supported verdict types. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with example triggers and clearly states purpose, scope, return values, and comparison to alternatives. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides complete context: input format, scope, return values, and performance benefits. It fully satisfies information needs for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'claim' parameter. The description adds value by providing example claims and emphasizing natural-language format, enhancing the schema's explanation. This goes beyond 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 performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples like 'fact check' and 'confirm or refute'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking, and explicitly notes the domain (company-financial claims for US public companies).

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 specifies the scope (company-financial claims). It implies when not to use (claims outside this scope) but does not mention alternative tools for non-financial claims. This is clear but could be more complete.

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