unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). Description adds that row is deactivated (not deleted) and historical events remain, providing 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 action, second provides key behavioral details. Front-loaded and 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?
For a simple tool with one param, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership, deactivation behavior, and links to recent_alerts for history. Complete and sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (id) described as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' Description does not add new info; baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id', specifying verb (cancel) and resource (subscription). It distinguishes from sibling 'subscribe' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), guiding when to use and implicitly when not. Does not explicitly contrast with other tools like list_subscriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even within clusters like Pipeworx queries (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.). Overlap is minimal and explicitly addressed in descriptions.
All tool names use snake_case, and most follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). Exceptions like remember, reverse are still single words in the same style.
32 tools is on the high side but justified by the wide scope: data querying, betting, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool earns its place, and the count is not excessive given the breadth.
The tool set covers the core workflows of querying structured data, comparing entities, validating claims, scanning dependencies, and monitoring, with few gaps (e.g., no direct data visualization). Minor gaps exist but are manageable.