Phone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it probes multiple models, returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} and a combined view, and explains the optional API key passthrough. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is concise (3 sentences). Every sentence adds value, covering use cases, default behavior, output format, and payment details without redundancy.

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

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

Given the 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the output structure (per-model and combined view). It leaves no important gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds meaningful explanation beyond the schema, such as the specific free model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b) and that _apiKey is passed straight through to Anthropic.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on AI visibility scoring, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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

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

The description provides clear usage contexts: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'. It also mentions the default model and optional Anthropic key. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to similar siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns structured answers with stable citation URIs and routes to specific tools. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured with front-loaded key message ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), examples, and step-up guidance. Every sentence adds value, though some slight redundancy could be trimmed.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (4,484 tools across 1130 sources) and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, examples, alternatives, and output format. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to proceed.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage and 6 aliases for the single required param, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the natural language input and providing examples of how to use the question parameter.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a router for factual questions across many authoritative sources, distinguishing it from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research. It uses specific verbs ('routes', 'returns') and states the scope of data types.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and provides detailed when-to-use criteria including example queries. Also specifies when to step up to grounded or deep_research, giving clear decision guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds significant behavioral context: structured return with answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason, and lists possible refusal reasons. Also mentions extra LLM call cost. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, when to use, how it works, output structure, cost trade-off.

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 (high-stakes, grounding, refusal modes), the description fully covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavior, output format, refusal reasons, and cost. No output schema, but description explains return structure adequately.

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 6 parameters are aliases for 'question' with 100% schema coverage. Description only says 'Your question in natural language,' which adds little beyond schema. 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?

Clearly states it is a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Explains the process: same routing as ask_pipeworx but extracts answer from tool result only, with evidence and explicit refusals. Distinctly differentiates from sibling 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and gives examples like financial verdicts, legal claims. Also advises to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups due to extra cost.

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 exhaustively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: fan-out examples, resolver contract (match confidence, alternatives), parent event extraction, news fallback fields, safety short-circuits (low_confidence_match, market_closed_or_inactive), tradeability notes, and resolution-rule risk. This far exceeds annotation-only information.

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

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

The description is very long (500+ words) and not concise, but it is well-structured with labeled sections (FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.) and front-loaded with core purpose. The verbosity is necessary given complexity, but it could be streamlined.

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 must explain all response fields and edge cases. It does so thoroughly: market fields, analysis block, evidence keys, resolver details, parent_event, news errors, safety mechanisms, and resolution rules. Nothing essential is omitted.

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 adds extensive meaning: examples of market_input (slug, URL, question), depth options with practical definitions ('quick = 2-3 evidence sources'), and include_raw tradeoffs (summary vs full payloads). This transforms basic schema into actionable guidance.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies input types (slug, URL, question) and distinct use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y'), differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases ('should I bet on X') and implies when to use it (single bet deep dive) vs siblings. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements or direct comparisons to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it handles off-calendar fiscal years, pulls data from SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies and FAERS for drugs, sorts results by primary metric, and returns citation URIs. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with query examples and well-structured. However, it is slightly verbose with multiple examples and sentence fragments; could be condensed without losing meaning.

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 is provided, but the description notes returns include paired data and citation URIs. Given the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple financial metrics), the description adequately covers inputs and outputs. Annotations and schema are rich.

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 2 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'values' are tickers/CIKs for companies and drug names for drugs, and that the max is 5 min is 2. It also elaborates on the 'type' parameter's data sources.

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 side-by-side comparison of 2-5 entities, with specific query examples (e.g., 'X vs Y', 'rank these companies'). It distinguishes from sequential single-pack lookups by noting it does parallel calls, and it specifies it works for companies and drugs.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It provides clear contexts like 'compare', 'vs', 'which is bigger', and 'rank these companies'. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use, the strong preference statement and examples suffice.

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=false, covering safety and consistency. Description adds that listing all is possible with no args, and filtering by various formats. 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: first states purpose, second explains usage variants. Extremely efficient with no redundant 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?

Lacks description of output format, which is important since there is no output schema. Examples help but agent needs to know if result is a list of objects or strings. Otherwise adequate for a simple lookup tool with strong annotations.

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

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

Schema already has a clear description for the 'query' parameter. Description reinforces with examples but adds no new semantic value beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 as schema coverage is 100%.

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

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

Description clearly states the verb 'look up' and resource 'international calling codes'. It distinguishes from sibling 'validate_phone' by specifying the function is for looking up codes, not validating numbers. The behavior with and without args is explicit.

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

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

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: with no args lists all, with query filters. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the usage context is well defined.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are all non-contradictory. Description adds significant behavioural detail: returns findings packet with gaps[], never invents, handles parallelism, and warns about empty results for topics outside structured catalog. Goes well beyond annotation hints.

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

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

Description is front-loaded with critical caveat (account required). While somewhat long, each sentence adds unique value—prerequisites, alternatives, behavior, limitations, and examples. Could be tightened slightly, but no wasted words.

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

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

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains return format (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, citation, gaps). It covers edge cases (breaking news returns empty gaps), complexity (parallel decomposition), and response time. Very complete.

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

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

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining enum values ('quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)') and clarifies that question is natural language and can be broad. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the extra context justifies a 4.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs 'grounded multi-source research' across 1130 structured data sources, decomposes questions into facets, and runs tools in parallel. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx (single lookup) and specifies it's best for broad/multi-part questions.

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 account requirement, signup link, and plan limitations. Clearly tells when to use ask_pipeworx instead (if not signed in, for single lookup, for breaking/current news). Provides depth level meanings and expected response time (15-60s).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable operational context: results are ready to call directly with full schemas, no second lookup needed. This goes beyond annotations to help the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by domain list and return details. Every sentence adds value—no filler. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas). With well-documented parameters and usage guidance, the tool is fully specifiable for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: explains that 'query' accepts natural language and lists aliases (task, q, search, description). It also clarifies default (20) and max (50) for 'limit'. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs ('Find tools by describing') and clearly lists numerous domains (SEC filings, FDA, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_entities or deep_research. It also states the return value (top-N relevant tools with schemas), ensuring the purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

The description explicitly advises 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set,' providing when to use it. However, it does not contrast with specific sibling tools or state when not to use it, which would raise the score to 5.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), description details data sources, return fields, and an important caveat about USPTO patents soft-failing. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Front-loaded with examples and purpose, then details. Slightly long but every sentence adds value; could trim redundant phrasing.

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 complexity (multiple data sources), description fully covers what is returned (cik, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and handles edge cases like patent sunset. No output schema, but return details are sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying that type is only 'company' and that value must be ticker or CIK, not names.

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 'full cross-source profile of a US public company' with specific examples ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_entity.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups' and notes when not to use: 'names not supported (use resolve_entity first if you 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 confirms deletion of memory, but adds no new behavioral details beyond what annotations indicate.

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 plus a short pairing suggestion. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, action front-loaded.

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

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

For a simple deletion tool with one parameter and full annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and relationships 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with description 'Memory key to delete'. Tool description repeats 'by key' but adds no 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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'previously stored memory by key', and distinguishes from siblings by naming 'remember' and 'recall' as paired tools.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: when context is stale, task done, or to clear sensitive data. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but provides context for choosing 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. This is useful context beyond annotations, though no contradictions.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph of about 60 words, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value: purpose, process, output format, use cases. 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?

The description covers what the tool does, how it works, output format, and use cases. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the output is a single text blob. For a simple tool with full schema and annotations, this is complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, both parameters are described in the schema. The description mentions 'max_links' default and max, which is already in the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the context 'for any URL so AI crawlers can index the site cleanly'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying use cases like auditing competitors, which is distinct from other sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check'.

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

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

The description lists explicit use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the provided contexts are sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about returned fields and default inactive exclusion, but does not contradict annotations. Some value added, but annotations carry most burden.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields, no unnecessary words.

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

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

Given the simple single-parameter schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and usage guidance completely. No output schema is needed as fields are listed.

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 include_inactive. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the fields returned (id, type, etc.), distinguishing 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use it to review subscriptions before adding more or to find an id to cancel. Implicitly suggests not for other purposes, though lacks explicit when-not statements.

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

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

The description discloses rate limits, non-quota usage, and daily digest reading. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description clarifies it is a non-destructive, write-only feedback submission. 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 compact (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (submitting feedback), the description covers all relevant aspects: types, usage, constraints, and context. No output schema is needed, and sibling tools confirm uniqueness.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reiterating enum options with examples, advising on message length (1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), and explaining the optional context fields.

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

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

The description clearly states it is for sending feedback to the Pipeworx team, with specific types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise, other). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which serve a feedback purpose.

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: for bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. Provides examples and instructions (e.g., describe in terms of Pipeworx tools, don't paste user prompt). Also mentions rate limits and that it's free/quota-free.

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=false. Description adds behavioral context: no PII, just aggregated counts, and caching times per window (5min-1h). No contradiction.

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

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

Description is three sentences plus a bullet list, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value—use cases, data sourced, caching behavior—no waste.

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

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

Given one optional parameter with full schema coverage, strong annotations, and no output schema needed (but description still outlines output shape: top tools, top packs, total call volume), the description is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with enum values described. The description adds meaning beyond the enum descriptions by explaining that shorter windows surface current trends and longer windows show steady-state demand.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over recent windows. It uses specific verbs and resource references, and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools.

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

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

Explicitly lists three use cases: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choice, and aligning use case with demand. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context signals provide sibling differentiation, and the description implies appropriate usage.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral details: walking child markets, checking date-axis/threshold-axis ordering, partition_check, Jaccard similarity, partition filter, and fill check with order book depth. 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 verbose and lacks structure (no bullet points or clear sections). While it front-loads the requirement, the density of information could be better organized for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 fully explains both modes, the checks performed, the output format with opportunities and partition_check, and the fill check logic. Despite no output schema, the description covers return values adequately.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by giving examples of slugs and seed questions, explaining what they mean in context, and mentioning that full URLs are accepted for event.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between event mode and topic mode, and the purpose is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or 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?

Explicitly states that one of event or topic is required and calling with no args fails. It recommends event for specific markets and topic for cross-event scanning, and mentions an alternative tool polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses detailed behavior: caching at KV level keyed on all knobs, response structure with segments and diagnostics, per-opportunity fields including edge and Kelly, and 24h-move warning. It fully explains what happens when called.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and organized into clear sections (model families, response structure, knobs, diagnostics). However, it is verbose at ~400 words and could be condensed by merging redundant explanations without losing clarity.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is exhaustive. It explains model families, response format (by_segment, diagnostics), caching, edge calculation, and tradeable-edge knobs. It also addresses edge cases like empty segments and Fed bets.

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 all 9 parameters. The tool description repeats some parameter details (e.g., min_liquidity, max_spread_pp) but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. It summarizes knobs but doesn't provide extra semantics.

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

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

The description clearly states it scans top Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, specifically built for 'what should I bet on today'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing its unique model families and tradeable-edge knobs, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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

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

The description implies usage through its purpose and examples like 'TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS' and 'place holder-slug filter', providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_fill_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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it reads snapshots, computes trends, tracks expired opportunities, and details limitations like TTL and snapshot gaps. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the key question. It is relatively long but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains the response structure in detail (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and covers limitations. It is fully adequate for agent understanding and invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the role of 'days' as lookback and 'window' as snapshot family, along with default and options. 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 it provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question about edge longevity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series analysis rather than current snapshots.

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

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

It explicitly states when to use: 'Answers how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' but does not mention when not to use or directly compare to alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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

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

Discloses live order book check, returns slippage, verdict, and warns about dominant loss mode. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent and the description adds rich behavioral context beyond them.

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?

Dense and informative but could be better structured (e.g., break into sections for modes). However, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value. Minor 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?

Comprehensively covers both input modes, return values, warnings, and failure modes. No output schema, but the description fully explains what will be returned, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: explains size_usd meaning for modes, side defaults, and required-or relationship between market and event. This adds value over 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?

Clearly states the tool performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and lists specific return values. This differentiates it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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

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

Explicitly commands 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500', providing clear when-to-use and implicit when-not-to-use guidance. Also warns about partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged directional position.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, which is consistent. The description adds rich detail: compatibility warnings, temporal alignment fields, skipped leg counters, and caveats about real spread scarcity. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is relatively long but every sentence adds necessary detail (modes, response fields, safety fields, caveats). It could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (leg prices, top spreads, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). For a complex cross-venue tool with multiple edge cases, this is highly complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by listing the ten topic shortcuts, explaining override behavior when explicit tickers are used, and providing examples. This goes beyond the baseline schema information.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, with two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers). It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by emphasizing the cross-venue nature and compatibility warnings.

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

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

The description explains when to use the tool (to detect mispricing between venues) and provides caution that pre-mapped topics often yield compatibility_warning, implying limited tradability. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, though the warnings serve as exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read operation. Description adds scoping detail and pairing with remember/forget, reinforcing behavior.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with action, concise and no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given the simple parameter set and annotations, the description fully covers usage, scoping, and pairing with siblings. No gaps.

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

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

Schema covers the single parameter with a description that matches the tool description. No additional meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3.

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

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

Clearly states the verb 'retrieve/list' and the resource 'value previously saved via remember' or 'all saved keys'. Distinguishes from siblings 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 explicit use cases with examples (target ticker, address, research notes) and mentions scoping to identifier. Does not explicitly state when not to use but gives strong usage signals.

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 introduces the mark_read parameter that flags events as read, implying a state change. However, the annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating the tool is read-only. This contradiction reduces the transparency score to 1. The description otherwise provides useful behavioral details about polls and the feed.

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 at three sentences, with the most important information (what the tool returns) first. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. The alternative endpoint is mentioned efficiently.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format (fields), filtering options, and the mark_read behavior. It also mentions polling and a REST alternative. It is fairly complete, though error conditions or exact field formats are omitted.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by providing an example for type ('sec_8k') and explaining the effect of mark_read on subsequent calls. This is helpful but does not significantly surpass the schema 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 it pulls fired events from the subscription feed and specifies the returned fields (source, citation_uri, raw event payload). It is specific about the resource and action, and while it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the context of alerts is unique among siblings.

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

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

The description mentions that polling works fine and provides an alternative REST endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

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

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations: it fans out to multiple sources, describes fallback from GDELT to GNews, notes that USPTO soft-fails until reactivated, and specifies the return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, pipeworx:// URIs). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured with front-loaded examples. Every sentence adds value, but a slight reduction in verbose phrasing could make it 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?

The description is complete: it explains the tool's scope, covers all three parameters, details sources and fallback, and describes the return format despite the lack of an 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%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that type only supports 'company', gives both ISO dates and relative shorthand examples for since, and clarifies that value can be a ticker or CIK. This goes beyond the schema 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 begins with concrete query examples, clearly stating it provides a change feed for a company in a given time window. It lists specific data sources and distinguishes itself from the sibling entity_profile tool, which provides a static profile.

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

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it addresses queries like 'what's new with X' and explicitly points to entity_profile as the alternative for static profiles. It also offers advice on the since parameter (e.g., 'use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring').

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

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing persistence behavior (permanent for authenticated users, 24-hour for anonymous sessions) and scoping by identifier. Annotations only indicate idempotent and non-destructive nature; description provides crucial context.

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

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

The description is concise (4-5 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers when to use, how it works, persistence details, and integration with related tools. 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?

While schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, the description adds examples of key patterns (e.g., 'subject_property', 'target_ticker'), enhancing the semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later.' It specifies the resource (key-value memory store) and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' and provides concrete examples. It also advises pairing with recall and forget, offering clear guidance on 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?

Annotations already mark it as readonly, idempotent, nondestructive. The description adds value by disclosing that calls cascade through multiple internal endpoints and describes the return format for each type (including citation URIs), going beyond annotation defaults.

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

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

The description is moderately long but well-structured: examples first, purpose statement, usage guidance, then detailed type breakdown. Every sentence contributes information, though it could be slightly shorter.

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 thoroughly explains what the tool returns for each entity type (ticker, CIK, citation URI for companies; RxCUI, ingredient, brand, citation for drugs). This makes the tool's behavior complete and predictable.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches the parameters by listing accepted inputs per type (e.g., brand or generic name for drugs) and disambiguation behavior. This adds meaning beyond the schema's enum and string 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 purpose: resolving names to canonical identifiers needed by other tools. It uses specific examples like ticker, CIK, RxCUI, and distinguishes from siblings like compare_entities and entity_profile.

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

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

The description includes explicit guidance to use this tool 'whenever you have a name but need an ID' and mentions that it replaces manual lookups. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions but is clear enough given the tool's focused 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 already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds significant behavioral context: it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, treats first entity as subject. No contradictions.

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

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

Description is 4 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, uses clear structure without wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description explains return format: ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity. Also notes internal use of ai_visibility_check, covering behavior and output sufficiently.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining that first entity is subject, context disambiguates names, and models have defaults (workers-ai free). However, it does not fully detail each parameter's constraints.

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

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

The description uses specific verb 'Compare AI visibility' and resource 'multiple entities', distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (likely other attributes). It clearly states the tool compares side-by-side and ranks.

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 usefulness for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example query. Implicitly contrasts with single-entity tool ai_visibility_check, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timeouts. 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?

Description is informative but slightly long (4-5 sentences). All sentences add value, but could be trimmed without loss. Front-loaded with main 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 thoroughly details return content (summary block fields, advisories, links, alternatives). Also covers partial failures and timing. Satisfies completeness given tool complexity and context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented. Description adds minimal extra context (scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest), which is slightly above baseline but not significant.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is a composite check for npm packages, specifying sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and returned summary fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being unique (no other tool scans npm packages).

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks...' with concrete examples, and notes NPM ecosystem only in v1, with fallback for other ecosystems. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description reveals implementation details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag. This fully informs the agent of behavior.

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

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

The description is a single informative paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and packs all necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given the complexity and lack of output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (top-N passages with offsets and scores), how it works internally, and constraints (char limit, truncation). It is complete for effective use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds valuable context for each parameter: text is the document, query is natural-language, limit is max passages. It also explains the 200K char cap and truncation behavior, complementing 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 does semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific examples (SEC 10-K, article) and output details (passages, offsets, scores). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on searching within provided text rather than external sources.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. It also describes a workflow pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing clear guidance on context and alternatives.

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

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: account requirement, return value, delivery channel constraints (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable), and the one-time webhook secret. 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?

Every sentence adds value. The structure is logical: purpose, prerequisites, types with examples, delivery channels. No redundancy. Concisely packs a lot of information.

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

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

The description covers purpose, types, parameters, delivery, and constraints thoroughly. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency behavior (annotated as idempotent), leaving a minor gap about duplicate subscription handling.

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

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

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema with concrete examples for each subscription type (e.g., sec_8k with ticker and items) and detailed delivery channel semantics with usage patterns and constraints.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns a new subscription ID. It distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe by focusing on creation.

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 prerequisites (requires Pipeworx OAuth account) and limitations (e.g., SMS 10/day cap), giving clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_subscriptions or unsubscribe.

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns example questions with tool+argument shapes, call with no arguments for full spread, optional topic to focus. No contradictions.

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

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

Description is front-loaded with common user queries and provides a clear structure. While somewhat long, each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but not excessively wordy.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description fully covers what an AI agent needs: purpose, usage context, parameter details, and behavioral expectations.

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 one optional parameter described. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'topic' is an optional focus area and listing possible values (finance, pharma, etc.) with examples.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns category-bucketed example questions for onboarding, with an optional topic filter. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by positioning itself as the first tool to use when unsure of what to ask.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' Also mentions alternatives by referencing meta-tools like ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, etc.

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

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds value by explaining that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and that historical events stay available via 'recent_alerts', aligning with and enriching the annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action and then provides essential behavioral context, making every sentence earn 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter source, ownership constraint, effect (deactivation), and availability of historical data. It omits return value or error cases but is largely 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents that the 'id' parameter is a subscription ID returned by 'subscribe'. The description adds no further parameter details beyond what is in the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on cancellation and deactivation behavior.

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

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

The description implies using this tool when you want to cancel a subscription and mentions ownership enforcement. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral detail is supplementary. The description adds value by listing the return types (verdict, structured form, actual value, citation, delta) and mentioning the authoritative sources (SEC EDGAR + XBRL). It does not contradict annotations.

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

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

The description is a single focused paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose with examples, then includes domain scope, return value, and efficiency benefit. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It explains input type, domain, return structure, and the tool's efficiency advantage. It fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The single parameter 'claim' has 100% schema description coverage. The description adds context by providing example claims and specifying the domain (company-financial), which goes beyond the schema. It also explains what the tool does with the input, adding semantic value.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples of triggering phrases. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls, providing a clear specific verb+resource.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also scopes the domain to company-financial claims for public US companies. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is keyless and offline, and it only checks plausibility, not real-world validity. It also explicitly states limitations, which is crucial for an agent's decision-making.

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

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

The description is two sentences, each serving a clear purpose. The first sentence states the core function and capabilities; the second sentence provides usage patterns and exclusions. No redundant or extraneous information.

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

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

Given the complexity of phone validation and that no output schema is provided, the description adequately explains what the tool does (validate, parse, detect country, normalize, check plausibility). However, it does not specify the exact output format, which could be beneficial for an agent. Still, the core behavior is well-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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description goes further by explaining the two usage modes (international number vs. national number with country code) and clarifying that country is optional. This adds semantic 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 clearly states the tool validates & parses phone numbers against E.164 standard. It specifies the exact actions (detects country, normalizes, checks plausibility) and distinguishes itself from siblings that might do similar tasks (e.g., carrier lookup). Verb 'validate & parse' plus resource 'phone number' leaves no ambiguity.

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

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

Explicitly explains when to use this tool (for validation and parsing) and what it does not do (carrier detection, mobile-vs-landline). It also provides two valid input patterns (international or national with country code), helping the agent decide how to invoke it correctly.

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