Paperswithcode

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explains that a default free model is used, that Anthropic probing requires a BYO key with direct payment, and that results include per-model and combined views. 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 tightly written with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the core action and scoring range, then efficiently covers optional parameters and use cases. Every sentence adds information.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully covers return values with a clear structure (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). All four parameters are explained adequately in context. No gaps.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default model, the role of '_apiKey' as a BYO key for Anthropic, and the disambiguation purpose of 'context'. This exceeds mere schema repetition.

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 ('probe', 'score') and resources ('LLMs', 'visibility 0-100'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on scoring visibility per model, making its purpose unique.

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

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

The description explicitly lists use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus similar siblings, such as 'scan_competitor_ai_presence', which could be a close alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it routes to 4,774 tools, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, works on all tiers, and is one fast call, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured, starting with the key message to prefer over web search, then listing covered domains, usage patterns, examples, and alternatives. While lengthy, it is logically organized and front-loaded, but could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Given the complexity of the tool (routing to many sources), the description covers usage, alternatives, examples, behavior, and expected output (structured answer with citations). It leaves no major gaps for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 parameters fully described. Description adds natural language usage and lists aliases already in schema, but does not provide significant additional semantic 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 answers factual questions with authoritative structured data, specifying domains like SEC filings, FDA data, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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

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

Explicitly says to prefer over web search, provides examples of when to use (e.g., 'what is', 'look up', 'current'), and when to step up to alternatives for broader questions or hallucination-resistant answers.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: return format (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason), possible refusal reasons, and the extraction mechanism. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering behavior, return format, refusal reasons, and usage guidance. Slightly long but efficient with 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 the complexity (multiple parameter aliases, detailed return logic, refusal reasons), the description covers most aspects comprehensively. It lacks an output schema but explains return fields thoroughly. A minor gap is not explicitly stating the tool selection process's provenance, but it's implicitly covered.

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 parameters documented in the input schema. The description briefly repeats that the question is in natural language and accepts aliases, adding minimal value beyond the schema. 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 the tool's purpose: a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, and distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx by specifying that it extracts answers only from tool results and returns refusal reasons.

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 this tool (high-stakes reads where answers will be quoted or acted on) and when to prefer ask_pipeworx (casual lookups). Also mentions the extra LLM call cost, providing clear decision criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavior details: low-confidence match short-circuit, closed market handling, wide-spread markets, resolution-rule risk, resolver contract, parent event extractor, news fallback, and safety measures. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is quite long and detailed, with multiple paragraphs and sections. While it is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, it lacks conciseness; every sentence is informative but could be trimmed for efficiency.

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

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

Given the complexity, no output schema, and many special cases, the description covers all necessary aspects: market matching confidence, analysis block, evidence keys, parent events, news fields, safety mechanisms, and resolution rules. It is fully complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds context: 'market' accepts slug/URL/question text, 'depth' has quick/thorough with behavior explained, 'include_raw' has summary vs full payload and a recommendation. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Research', the resource 'Polymarket bet', and the action 'pulling the relevant Pipeworx data'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Polymarket bets and Pipeworx data, unlike tools like 'polymarket_edges' or 'validate_claim'.

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 use cases are given: 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context makes the tool's purpose clear enough to differentiate.

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 value by detailing specific data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and inclusion of citation URIs.

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

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

The description is content-rich with multiple examples and details, but remains efficient. It front-loads query patterns and provides essential information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (multiple entity types, data sources, limited item count), the description covers key aspects. It mentions output includes paired data and citation URIs, which is adequate despite no output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances meaning by explaining the data context for 'company' vs 'drug' types and clarifying that 'values' should be tickers or drug names, which goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 'compare', 'vs', 'rank', and clearly states it performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'entity_profile' by emphasizing it replaces multiple 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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: account requirement, 15-60s latency, parallel tool routing, output format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, gaps), and the fact that it never invents. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or other 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 thorough but front-loaded with critical prerequisites (account requirement) and cross-tool guidance. Every sentence adds value, though length could be reduced slightly for improved scanability.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, use cases, limitations, output format, and behavioral expectations comprehensively, leaving 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: depth enum values are explained (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8 with paid plan), and question is described as accepting broad/multi-part natural language queries.

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 grounded multi-source research across 1242 structured data sources, distinguishes itself from open-web search, and contrasts with sibling tools like ask_pipeworx for single lookups or current news.

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), when not to use (breaking news, single lookup), and alternatives (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded). Also notes sign-in requirements and paid plan for 'thorough' depth.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context: returns top-N tools with full schemas and curated examples, ready to call directly.

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 informative but slightly lengthy. Front-loaded with purpose, but could be tightened without losing clarity.

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

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

No output schema, but description sufficiently explains return format (tool names, descriptions, schemas). All 6 parameters documented, examples provided. Complete for the tool's purpose.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. Description adds value by explaining aliases and giving examples of valid queries, enhancing meaning beyond schema.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool discovers tools by describing data or task, listing numerous example domains. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on tool discovery rather than data retrieval.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST'. Does not specify when not to use, but positive guidance is strong.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: how the tool fans out across multiple sources, the specific fields returned, and a note that the patents component soft-fails due to a sunset. This 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?

The description is front-loaded with example queries and is thorough but efficient. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly shortened without losing key information. Still 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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers all return fields and their structure (e.g., CIK, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI). It also notes limitations and fallbacks, making it complete for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining acceptable values for type and value, clarifying that names are not supported, and providing examples. This enhances the parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing a full cross-source profile of a US public company. It includes specific example phrases, lists the integrated data sources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending preference over chaining individual 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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool ('ALWAYS PREFER over chaining...'). It specifies accepted input formats (ticker or CIK), explicitly excludes names, and directs users to use resolve_entity if they only have a name.

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

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context for when to use the destructive action, aligning with annotations. 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?

Two sentences, no filler. Purpose and usage are front-loaded, every word earns its place.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema) and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and siblings completely.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and description mentions 'by key', but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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 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?

Provides explicit scenarios for use: stale context, task completion, clearing sensitive data. Mentions siblings but doesn't explicitly state when not to use, though the destructive hint implies caution.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds details: fetches page, extracts title/description/links, outputs standard markdown. No contradictions; it enriches behavioral understanding 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 efficient sentences: first states action and audience, second lists use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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

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

Given the simplicity (2 params, full schema coverage, rich annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, and when to use it. No output schema needed as return is described as 'single text blob'.

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 new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., max_links default and max are already in 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 generates an llms.txt file from a URL, targeting AI crawlers. It uses specific verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt file', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on file generation rather than auditing.

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

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

The description lists three use cases (client indexing, own project, competitive audit) but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful detail about the returned data but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication). This meets the baseline for annotated tools.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists key outputs. Every word is informative, with no redundancy.

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

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

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, an existing output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary context. It lists major return fields and provides an example identifier 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 schema already documents arxiv_id with an example. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add new semantics 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 identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('full detail for a paper'), and the identifier ('arXiv id'). It lists specific fields returned (title, authors, abstract, summary, keywords, upvotes, counts), distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like search_papers.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have an arXiv ID and need full paper details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., search_papers for query-based retrieval) or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying it fetches multiple sources (GitHub, Hugging Face) and returns 'most popular' items, indicating ranking behavior. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second lists what it returns, and the third gives usage examples. 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 the tool's moderate complexity (multi-source fetch), one parameter, existing output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how to use it, and typical use cases. It is complete for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter, arxiv_id. The description merely mentions 'by arXiv id' without adding semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds implementations of a paper by arXiv id, listing GitHub repos, HF models, Spaces, and datasets. It defines the 'papers with code' view with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_paper or search_papers.

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

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

The description includes explicit usage examples like 'code/implementation for <paper>' and 'models trained on <paper>', guiding when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds return fields and default behavior (active only), which is helpful but not extensive 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 with no unnecessary words; front-loaded with the core action and useful details.

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

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

No output schema exists, but description enumerates all return fields. Covers the tool's functionality completely given its simplicity and the richness of annotations.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter well-described in the schema. Description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's existing documentation.

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

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

Description clearly states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools 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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Provides both context and purpose.

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 show all hints false, but description adds important behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per day, free, doesn't count against tool-call quota. 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?

Compact three-sentence structure with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third adds behavioral notes. Front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, description fully covers usage scenarios, constraints, and examples. Complete for a feedback submission 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by advising to describe issues in terms of tools/packs, not to paste end-user prompts, and suggesting 1-2 sentences typical length.

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 uses specific verb 'Send feedback' and clearly states it's for reporting bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only feedback channel.

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 each feedback type (bug, feature, etc.) and what not to do (don't paste user prompts). Also mentions rate limits and quota exemption.

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 value beyond annotations: explains data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, caching behavior (5min-1h). Annotations already declare safety, but this provides operational 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?

Concise (4 sentences) with clear structure: definition, use cases, technical details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Given one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input semantics, output shape (top tools, packs, volume), caching, and privacy. Complete for its complexity.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage. Description adds semantic guidance: shorter windows for hot trends, longer for steady-state. Explains the trade-off between recency and stability.

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

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

Clearly states it returns top tools, packs, and call volume over a window. Distinguishes from siblings like discover_tools and trending_papers by focusing on AI agent call activity.

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?

Lists three explicit use cases (discovering hot data, confirming canonical tool, checking alignment). Does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: the three scanning modes, monotonicity checks, partition checks, Jaccard similarity filter, placeholder filtering, fill check against live order book depth, and the structure of the response. Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent, which the description confirms and expands upon 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?

Though lengthy, every sentence adds essential information. The description is well-structured: begins with high-level purpose, then details each mode, followed by technical filters, response format, and fill-check guidance. Front-loaded with the most important details, no unnecessary repetition.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, multiple algorithmic checks, fill validation), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all operational aspects, explains the response structure despite no output schema, and even references a sibling tool for custom sizing. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.

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, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'event' accepts slugs or full URLs, 'topic' accepts a seed question, and clarifies behavior when both are absent (trending scan). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) and explains their specific use cases, making it easy to differentiate from siblings 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 is provided for each mode: when to call with no args (trending scan), when to pass event (specific market), and when to use topic (cross-event scanning). The description advises on trade validity via fill check, stating not to trade when realizable_edge_pp <= 0, which serves as a clear when-not-to-use directive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant behavioral context: caching at 1h, diagnostic output explaining empty segments, tradeable-edge knobs, Fed bets exclusion rationale, and detailed component model explanations. 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 verbose and dense, packing extensive detail into a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the wall of text may overwhelm agents. Every sentence adds value, but structure could be improved with bullet points or shorter sentences.

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

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

With no output schema, the description compensates fully by detailing the response structure (by_segment, diagnostics, fed_candidates), edge cases (empty segments, filter skips), and caching behavior. It covers all aspects needed for correct invocation and interpretation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters documented). The description does not add much beyond the schema for individual parameters, but it elaborates on parameter interactions (e.g., min_partition_leg_kelly's relationship to partition_overround). Baseline 3 is appropriate; no compensation needed.

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 scans top Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('Polymarket markets'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'polymarket_arbitrage' and 'polymarket_kalshi_spread' by describing its unique approach.

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

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

The description includes 'Built for "what should I bet on today" — agents discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets', which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to alternatives.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: how snapshots are populated (on cache-miss), that gaps mean 'nobody scanned that day', that decay is computed from daily closes net of default slippage, and the full response structure. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is thorough but relatively long. It front-loads the key question and then dives into response structure details. Every sentence earns its place, but the lengthy field-by-field explanation of the response could be condensed slightly without losing clarity.

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

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

Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure: tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[], and their fields. It also covers data freshness, limits (60-day TTL), and caveats (intraday not available). This provides a complete mental model for the agent.

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

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

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, but the description adds practical context: default values (14 days, '1wk') and the clamp range (2-30) for days, plus the meaning of 'window' as the snapshot family. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description opens with a clear verb-object combination ('Edge persistence and decay telemetry') and immediately answers the core question: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'polymarket_edges' by framing it as the historical telemetry counterpart.

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 context: it explains when to use the tool (to distinguish a fresh wide edge from an old one), notes limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes, no intraday), and implies when not to use (for real-time intraday decay). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases.

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

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

Description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: REQUIRES one of market or event, defaults for side and size_usd, clamp on size, detailed return fields including verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warns that partial basket fills convert arb into directional position.

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 lengthy but well-structured with bold section headers (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and bullet-point-like return fields. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose.

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

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

Given no output schema and complex multi-mode behavior, the description fully documents return fields for both modes, edge cases like thin legs and forced directional risk, and positions the tool relative to siblings. Comprehensive and actionable.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description enriches parameter meaning: explains how side default is auto in basket mode based on partition sum, how size_usd interpretation differs between modes (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and notes clamping range.

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 a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth, with two distinct modes (single-market and basket). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly advising use before polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges actions.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. Provides rationale for not using without it: thin books cause uncapturable overround, partial basket fills create unhedged directional risk.

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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains safety fields (compatibility_warning), temporal alignment, skipped cross types, and when spreads are meaningless. No contradiction with annotations. Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; description confirms and elaborates.

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 appropriately detailed and well-structured with sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS). Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly shorter, but each part serves a purpose.

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

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

No output schema, but description explains response components sufficiently. Complexity is high (cross-venue, multiple modes, compatibility checks). Covers temporal alignment, skipped legs, and warnings. Lacks some details on exact output format but acceptable.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and description reinforces parameter meaning with concrete examples (e.g., 'fed', 'KXFED-26OCT', 'fed-decision-in-june-825'). Adds value beyond schema by explaining override behavior and listing all topics.

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 computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket, specifies two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers), and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on cross-venue spreads.

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

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to use topic mode vs explicit mode, including a list of topic shortcuts. Warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning, so not tradeable. However, does not explicitly compare to all sibling tools (e.g., compare_entities) or state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds scoping info: 'Scoped to your identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID).' No contradictions; adds useful context.

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

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

Two sentences with no filler. Purpose is stated first, then context and pairing. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, scope, and relationships with siblings. Nothing essential is missing.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter 'key'. Description reinforces that omitting key lists all keys, but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. 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 explicitly states the action: 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument).' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like remember and forget.

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

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

Provides clear use cases: 'look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' Also mentions pairing with remember and forget. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements but context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, implying the tool does not modify state. However, the description states that setting mark_read:true 'flag[s] returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones', which is a mutation. This is a serious contradiction, making the description misleading.

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

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

The description is concise with 5 sentences, each adding distinct value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, filtering options, the mark_read effect, and an alternative access method. No redundancy.

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

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

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, filtering, marking read, and polling alternative. It lacks details on pagination beyond limit and behavior when no events exist, but overall sufficiently 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond schema descriptions, such as explaining that 'since' expects an ISO timestamp and that mark_read affects future calls. This enhances parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' and explains what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the tool's niche is clear.

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

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

The description provides guidance on filtering by type and since, and mentions that polling works fine and an alternative URL for scripts/dashboards. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings, but context is adequate.

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 multiple behavioral traits beyond annotations: it fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO (with soft-fail note), returns structured changes grouped by source with citation URIs, and explains fallback logic. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., but 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 succinct yet comprehensive. It front-loads example queries, then explains the mechanism, parameter details, output structure, and a clear sibling distinction. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler. Despite length, it is well-structured and earns its length.

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

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

Despite having no output schema, the description describes the output structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, pipeworx:// citation URIs). It covers multi-source fan-out, fallback logic, parameter formats, and error handling. For a tool with 3 required params and moderate complexity, this is fully complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

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

All 3 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds value: explains since format in detail (ISO date or relative shorthand with examples), recommends typical values, and clarifies that value accepts ticker or CIK. This enriches the schema's baseline of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' and lists specific use cases ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tool entity_profile, which provides static profiles. The verb 'fans out' and resource 'company recent changes' are precise.

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 examples ('What's new with X') and when-not ('Use entity_profile instead ... regardless of window'). It also explains the since parameter format and recommended usage ('Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring'). This gives clear usage guidance and alternatives.

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

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: scoped by identifier, memory duration (24h vs persistent). Does not contradict annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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

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

Five sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and 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?

Complete for a simple tool with 2 string params and no output schema. Covers purpose, usage, pairing, and persistence.

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

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

Schema covers both params with clear descriptions (key format, value as any text). Description adds extra context about typical uses, but schema already does most of the work. Slight value add.

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 ('save data'), specific resource ('key-value pair'), and examples distinguish it from siblings like 'recall' and 'forget'.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use ('discover something worth carrying forward'), provides examples, and mentions pairing with recall/forget. Also explains persistence differences per auth state.

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, idempotent read operations. Description adds valuable context that each call cascades through several internal endpoints, replacing multiple lookups, without contradicting any 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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with examples and purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated by entity type).

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully explains expected returns for both entity types, including citation URIs. It also notes the cascading internal behavior, making it complete for a lookup 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 covers both parameters fully. Description greatly enriches by detailing specific return values per type (e.g., ticker+CIK for company, RxCUI for drug), acceptable input formats, and citation URIs, going far 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?

Description starts with concrete examples, states the core purpose of resolving a name to an official identifier, and lists supported entity types with specific outputs. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces multiple manual lookups.

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

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

Explicitly advises using this tool 'FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, returns score/confidence/signal density, and explains conditional API key usage. No contradictions.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, then details. Every sentence is essential, 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?

No output schema, but description explains return values (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and output. Complete for a tool with 4 params and no nested objects.

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 slight value by clarifying the role of the first entity as 'subject' and explaining when _apiKey is needed, but does not add much beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities, uses ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tool ai_visibility_check which handles single entities.

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 it is useful for competitive AI-marketing audits, implying when to use. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context of siblings makes it clear that for single entity one would use ai_visibility_check.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description reveals key behaviors: it fans out across multiple sources, and mention partial failures with bundlephobia's first measurement taking 5-30s, with sources_failed listing timeouts. This adds significant transparency not available in annotations alone.

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 slightly long but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then adding usage guidance, ecosystem limitations, and failure behavior. Every sentence is informative, though some redundancy could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return structure (summary block with fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and handles partial failures. For a tool with only two parameters, this is fully complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing clear descriptions for both parameters (package, version). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the NPM-only constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a composite check for adding npm packages, covering license, advisories, bundle size, etc. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform dependency scanning.

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 usage guidance: 'Use whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small or what does adding lodash cost me.' It also specifies that the tool is NPM ecosystem only in v1, and directs users to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems, clearly distinguishing when to use this versus alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns specific fields and that a GitHub repo is included when available, providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides usage examples. No redundant information, front-loaded with key details.

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

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

The description covers purpose, output fields, and example queries. An output schema exists, so the explicit listing of return fields is helpful but not strictly necessary. It is complete for a search tool, missing only pagination details which are not critical.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant new meaning for the parameters; it only gives example queries, which the schema already does. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states it searches ML/AI research papers via Hugging Face Papers, and lists specific return fields (arXiv id, title, authors, upvotes, GitHub repo). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_paper' and 'trending_papers' by specifying it is for searching on topics.

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 clear use cases: 'papers on <topic>' and 'recent ML research about X'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the use cases are well-defined.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotent), description adds implementation details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag.

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

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

Five sentences with no fluff, front-loaded purpose, each sentence adds value. Technical details appended without redundancy.

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

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

All necessary context provided: when to use, technical limits, pairing with sibling, return format (passages with offsets/scores). No output schema needed as description covers it.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% but description adds default and range for limit (1-20, default 5), and reinforces cap for text. Examples for query add clarity.

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 semantic search inside a fetched record, distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'INSIDE' and contrasting with tools like 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 advises use when record is too large for prompt, saves context, and pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded. No explicit 'when not to use' but context implies it.

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

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as OAuth requirement, delivery channels, SMS caps, and feed always-on. However, it does not clarify idempotency (annotation idempotentHint=true) or behavior on duplicate subscriptions. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description partially supplements but has gaps.

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

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

The description is concise (about 150 words), front-loaded with the main purpose, and well-structured with clear sections for types and delivery. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. Minor improvement could be bullet formatting.

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 good parameter coverage and some behavioral details, the description is incomplete: it only lists three of the five subscription types in the schema enum (missing 'patent_grant' and 'clinical_trial'). It also omits webhook signing details present in the schema. Given the tool's complexity, the description should cover all supported types.

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

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

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context by explaining the meaning of each subscription type with examples (e.g., sec_8k items) and delivery channels (feed always on, SMS/email with details), enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions the returned subscription ID. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or unsubscribe, missing a chance to clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 a prerequisite (Pipeworx OAuth account) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., list_subscriptions, unsubscribe). There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use', and no comparison to alternatives for managing subscriptions.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds rich behavioral context: it explains the return format (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes) and that it draws from a live catalog of thousands of tools, going well beyond the annotation's 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 verbose but well-structured, starting with common user queries, then explaining the output, then usage details. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, read-only), the description is fully complete. It covers when to use, what it returns, how to call it with/without an argument, and its role as an onboarding aid.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter. The description adds significant meaning by listing the possible topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and clarifying that omitting the parameter gives a full cross-category spread.

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 ('returns category-bucketed example questions') and clearly identifies the resource (Pipeworx's capabilities). It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the onboarding entry point and mentions that it teaches how to call meta-tools like ask_pipeworx.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you') and provides guidance on calling with or without the topic argument. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the context implies this is the starting point.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: papers are 'ranked by community upvotes' and sourced from 'Hugging Face Papers'. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient transparency for a read-only, idempotent tool.

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, both essential: first defines the tool's core function, second provides example queries. No wasted words. Front-loaded with 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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters, an existing output schema, and no nested objects, the description fully covers the needed context: source, ranking method, typical use cases. No gaps remain.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it simply reiterates the optional date and limit. No additional meaning is provided, but no additional is needed given full schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns 'today's trending ML/AI papers' from Hugging Face Papers, ranked by community upvotes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers (searching specific queries) and get_paper (retrieving a single paper). The verb 'trending' plus resource 'papers' is specific and unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides example queries such as 'what are the hot AI papers' and 'trending ML research', offering clear usage guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, but the context from sibling tool names implies this is for trending, not specific searches.

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 value beyond annotations by explaining the row is deactivated (not deleted) and historical events remain. Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, which align with the description.

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 brief sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by an essential nuance. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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

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

Given the single parameter and schema coverage, the description explains the effect and ownership. It does not specify return values or error cases, but for a simple mutation tool it provides sufficient context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with description for 'id' already stating 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The tool description reinforces this but adds no new parameter information 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It specifies the effect (deactivation, not deletion) and retains historical events via recent_alerts.

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

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

Explicitly notes ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing context for when to use. Does not explicitly exclude other tools but implies its specific use case.

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, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds detailed behavioral context: it uses SEC EDGAR + XBRL, returns a verdict with structured form, actual value, pipeworx:// citation, and percent delta. This goes well 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 a single coherent paragraph that front-loads with usage examples, then explains scope and output. While effective, it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrases like the repeated 'natural-language claim verification'.

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

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

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, its data sources, and what it returns (verdict, structured form, etc.). This makes it self-contained 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 description coverage is 100% with a single 'claim' parameter described. The tool description reinforces the parameter's purpose with examples and domain restriction, adding value beyond the schema's limited 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's action—'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'—and provides concrete query examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'deep_research' or '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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' Although it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the domain specificity (company-financial claims) implicitly guides usage away from non-financial claims, and the mention of replacing 4-6 sequential calls indicates efficiency.

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