poetry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. The description adds value by detailing the return format (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response) and noting that Anthropic calls cost money directly from Anthropic. 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?

Concise at about 6 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value—purpose, scoring, model options, return format, use cases. No extraneous text.

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

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

Covers purpose, parameters, return format, model selection, and use cases adequately. No output schema exists, but the description compensates with a clear overview of output structure. Lacks discussion of rate limits or pagination, but these are likely not required for this tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description elaborates on the models parameter (default vs. Anthropic) and the context parameter with examples, adding meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and returns a visibility score (0-100). It mentions specific use cases like AI-marketing audits, differentiating it from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence, though lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 and explains when to use the free default model versus requiring an API key for Anthropic. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or list alternative tools from the sibling list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint (true), destructiveHint (false), etc. Description adds that it returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs, which is useful context.

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

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

Front-loaded with key message ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), but the description is somewhat lengthy. Well-structured with examples but could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Fully explains the tool's scope, behavior, and usage within a complex ecosystem of 4,552 tools. No output schema but description details return format (structured answer with citations).

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 multiple aliases well-documented. Description doesn't add extra meaning beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool routes questions to 4,552 tools across 1,160 sources for authoritative structured data, distinguishing itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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

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

Explicitly recommends this tool over web search, provides detailed usage scenarios (e.g., 'current US unemployment rate'), and guides when to step up to 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 and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: costs one extra LLM call, refusal reasons on failure, and that it extracts only from tool result. 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?

Well-structured with purpose upfront, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though could be tightened without losing clarity.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (routing, extraction, refusal reasons), the description is comprehensive. It describes return format and contrasts with sibling tools, compensating for lack of output schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents six parameter aliases. The description adds little beyond mentioning 'natural language' for the question, which is inherent. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles parameter 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 defines the tool as a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' specifying that it extracts answers using only tool results and returns structured evidence. It distinguishes from sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by naming it explicitly.

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

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

Provides explicit guidance: use for high-stakes reads where answers will be quoted/cited/acted on; prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups due to extra cost. Also notes same routing as ask_pipeworx, aiding selection.

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

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

The description is extremely transparent about the tool's behavior, covering fan-out mechanics, response shapes, safety mechanisms (low-confidence resolution short-circuit, closed market handling, wide-spread warnings), resolution-rule risk, and fallback logic for news sources. This adds far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), providing comprehensive behavioral 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 lengthy but well-structured, with clear sections (usage, classifiers, examples, response shapes, safety, resolution-rule). The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every paragraph adds necessary detail. While not the most concise, it is efficient given the tool's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (fan-out, multiple evidence sources, safety logic, resolution-rule risk) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all response fields (market_match_confidence, parent_event, news fields, cancellation_rule, etc.), edge cases, and fallback behavior. The agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains that the 'market' parameter can be a slug, URL, or question text; that 'depth' defaults to thorough and 'quick' uses 2-3 sources; and that 'include_raw' defaults to false for summarized evidence, with guidance on when to pass true. This enriches the parameter definitions substantially.

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 the resource (a Polymarket bet) and the action (research by pulling data), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on a single bet's comprehensive evidence packet and analysis.

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: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also explains the fan-out behavior and classifiers, giving the agent clear context on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive behaviors. The description adds valuable context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. 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 dense but efficient, front-loading example queries and key guidance. Every sentence adds information, though slightly verbose. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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

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

Given the complexity of two entity types and multiple data sources, the description covers return format (paired data + citation URIs), sorting, and data freshness. Lacks details on pagination or field-level specifics, but overall complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described. The description enriches them with domain-specific meaning: explains what data is fetched for each 'type' (company: 10-K financials; drug: FAERS counts) and the required format for 'values' (tickers/CIKs, drug names). This adds value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call.' It uses specific verbs like 'compare', 'rank', and 'head to head', and distinguishes it from sequential single-lookup tools like entity_profile. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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', providing strong usage guidance. It lists example queries and entity types, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for detailed historical analysis). Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds rich behavioral context: account prerequisites, parallel processing (4,552 tools), expected response time (15-60s), and the structure of the findings packet (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps array). It also explicitly states that it never invents answers.

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

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured and front-loaded with critical information (account requirement and alternative tool). Every sentence adds value, given the tool's complexity. Slight reduction in length could improve conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: prerequisites, alternative tools, scope (structured data only), decomposition approach, return format, limitations (gaps array), and appropriate use cases. An agent can confidently decide and invoke this tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds additional meaning by explaining the depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and noting that thorough requires a paid plan. It also advises that broad/multi-part questions are suitable.

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: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1160 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call, specifying decomposition of questions into facets. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by describing different use cases.

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 provides when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not to (single lookup → ask_pipeworx; breaking news → ask_pipeworx). It also notes the account requirement and the depth parameter's tier restriction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return format (top-N tools with full schemas and examples) and stating readiness for direct invocation, which annotations alone do not provide.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph that is slightly verbose but front-loaded with purpose and usage. All sentences add value, though it could be more concise.

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

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

No output schema is provided, but the description thoroughly explains what is returned (top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and that no further schema lookup is needed. This is complete for a discovery tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter, including aliases. The description adds examples but does not significantly extend parameter meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It provides specific examples (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first call for exploration.

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 guides when to use: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear context and implicit exclusion for when a specific tool is already known.

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 the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description reveals important behaviors: parallel calling of multiple data sources, return of specific data fields, and a soft-fail for the USPTO PatentsView API due to sunset. This adds significant value for the agent.

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: it leads with trigger phrases and usage preference, then enumerates data sources and returns, and ends with input constraints. Every sentence contributes, though the detailed list of returned fields could be streamlined for even better conciseness.

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

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

Given the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is quite thorough. It covers the data sources, return fields (including specific financials and URIs), limitations (no names, patent sunset), and alternative tools. It could be more precise about the response structure, but overall it provides adequate 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?

The input schema already has detailed descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description reinforces the no-names rule and mentions the zero-padded CIK format, adding slight nuance. However, it does not introduce new critical parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's goal: returning a full cross-source profile of a US public company. It provides trigger phrases and explicitly distinguishes itself from chaining individual lookups and other sibling tools like resolve_entity. This makes the purpose highly specific and easy to understand.

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

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

The description explicitly advises to prefer this tool over chaining individual lookups and tells users to use resolve_entity if they only have a name. It also notes that only ticker or CIK are accepted, not names. These guidelines are clear and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating the tool modifies data. The description adds context about deleting memories and clearing sensitive data, but does not significantly extend beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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

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

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers when to use and the memory context. It could mention return values 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete.' The tool description mentions 'by key' but does not add new meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'remember' and 'recall,' which store and retrieve memories respectively.

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 scenarios: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also advises pairing with 'remember' and 'recall.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context by explaining that the tool fetches the page, extracts title/description/links, and outputs markdown. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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

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

The description is concise at four sentences, with a clear structure: purpose, mechanism, output, and use cases. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format and placement. It could mention error handling for invalid URLs, but overall it is complete enough 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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'url' and 'max_links' fully documented. The description does not add meaningful information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for a URL, specifying the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt', and details the process. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on creating the file rather than scanning presence.

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 concrete use cases such as indexing a client's site or auditing a competitor, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so description adds return fields and reiterates safety. No contradictions; description adds value by listing fields.

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: first states purpose, second lists return fields and usage. No unnecessary words.

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

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

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description completely covers purpose, return fields, and usage context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with description for the one parameter. Description does not add extra semantics beyond 'active' vs 'include_inactive', which is baseline.

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

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

Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'subscriptions', and scope 'caller's active'. Distinguishes 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. Implies context but does not name specific sibling 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 are all false, so description carries full burden. It discloses rate-limiting (5 per identifier per day), cost (free, no quota impact), and how feedback is used (roadmap influence). 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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, each sentence adds necessary info. No redundancy or fluff. Efficient and well-structured.

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

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

Given 3 params (2 required), no output schema, description covers input semantics, usage guidelines, rate limits, and behavioral context. Completely equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining enum values with examples, clarifying the context object's optional fields, and advising on message specifics (1-2 sentences, 2000 chars, avoid end-user prompts).

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

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

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, features, data gaps, or praise. It distinguishes from sibling tools (none are feedback-related) with specific verbs and resource 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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and when not to (e.g., don't paste end-user prompt). Also explains the feedback types and their meanings, guiding correct tool selection.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds behavioral details: data source ('CF analytics-engine'), no PII, and caching (5min-1h). 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?

Concise, well-structured description with front-loaded main action and no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers output, window options, use cases, caching, and data source. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with description for 'window' parameter. The description further explains the meaning of each window duration ('shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand'), adding semantics beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns top tools, packs, and call volume over a recent window, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on trending data, which is unique among the listed 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 tools, and checking alignment with agent needs. This provides clear guidance on when to use the 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=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond by detailing internal checks like Jaccard similarity threshold, placeholder filtering, partition sum verification, and a fill check against live CLOB depth with specific conditions for when a signal should not be traded. This level of disclosure fully clarifies 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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections (e.g., SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and front-loaded with core purpose. While every sentence contributes to understanding, some details could be more tightly integrated without losing clarity.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the response format, including the opportunities array and the partition_check object in event mode. It also covers edge cases like null arb signals from partition filtering and the fill check condition, making the tool's complete behavior understandable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema by explaining the internal processes for each mode (e.g., walking child markets, checking date-axis ordering). It reinforces the schema descriptions but does not introduce entirely new semantic dimensions, hence 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 the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk, making its specific purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each invocation mode: no args for trending scan, event for a specific market, topic for cross-event scanning. It also explains why cross-event mode is useful and directs users to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, effectively covering when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, no destructive action. The description adds rich behavioral context: caching (1h at KV level), detailed model families (crypto_price, news_momentum, partition_overround, concentrated_longshot), response structure with diagnostics, and explanation of why segments may be empty. 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 quite long but well-structured with clear sections (model families, tradeable-edge knobs, response top-level). Every sentence provides necessary detail for a complex tool. Could be slightly more concise but earns its length.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity, schema coverage of all parameters, and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains inputs, internal logic (model details), output structure (by_segment, diagnostics), caching, and filtering knobs. No significant gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the rationale for parameters like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp, and how they relate to 'tradeable-edge' filters. However, most parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear, limiting additional semantic gain.

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

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

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

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

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

The description explicitly states the use case: agents discovering opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. It explains tradeable-edge knobs and caching. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or differentiate from alternative sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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, etc. The description adds value by detailing response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), trend meanings, decay calculation, and limitations (TTL, non-intraday). 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 well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then explains response fields and limitations. Every sentence adds meaningful information. Slightly verbose, but justified given 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple response fields, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers all response arrays, field meanings, trend computation, expiration logic, snapshot dates, and limitations. No critical gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds default values and clarifications (e.g., days default 14, max 30; window default '1wk') but these are mostly redundant with the schema. Minimal additional semantics beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and its trend. It uses specific verbs ('tracks', 'answers') and resource ('edge persistence'). It is distinct from siblings like polymarket_edges, which likely provides current edges rather than historical decay.

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 context (e.g., a fresh wide edge differs from an old wide edge) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_edges. No exclusion criteria or direct comparisons are provided, relying on implicit understanding.

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 not destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it is a read-only check (not a trade), walks the order book ladder, returns verdict categories (clean, degraded, cannot_fill), and explains the risk of partial fills leading to unhedged directional positions. 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 with capitalized sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) and front-loads the main purpose. It is dense but informative; every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose due to detailed output lists, but justified given the tool's complexity with two modes.

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

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

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It thoroughly lists returned fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, verdict for single-market; theoretical_sum, capture_ratio, thin_legs for basket). It also explains the verdict categories and the forced_directional_risk field. Complete for an evaluation tool with rich output.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds further semantics: for market parameters, it explains how they determine mode; for size_usd, it elaborates on meaning for single-market (max spend vs target proceeds) and basket (settlement notional); for side, it explains default auto-detection in basket mode. This goes well beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, lists returned fields, and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, making purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also warns against relying on theoretical overround on thin books and explains the risk of partial basket fills converting arb to unhedged positions, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description details compatibility warnings (two cases), temporal alignment, skipped cross types/subtypes, and the rarity of actual tradeable spreads. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover.

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 densely packed with valuable information and well-structured (purpose, modes, response, safety fields). While every sentence adds value, the length could be slightly reduced by condensing the explanation of skipped_cross_type counters 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 and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (leg prices, top spreads, safety fields) and all edge cases (compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, skipped comparisons). It leaves no critical gap for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the two modes (topic vs. explicit), lists all topic shortcuts, and clarifies that explicit parameters override topic. This goes beyond the schema's property 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 defines the tool as a cross-venue spread analyzer between Kalshi and Polymarket. It specifies two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers), and the response structure, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance: use 'topic' for pre-mapped shortcuts or explicit tickers for custom pairs. It warns that most shortcuts currently return compatibility warnings, indicating when not to rely on them, and explains when spreads are meaningful (temporal alignment, matched pairs).

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context about scoping to user identifier.

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, concise and well-structured. Front-loaded with main action, no redundant information.

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

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

Adequately explains purpose, usage, and scope for a simple tool. No output schema, but description implies return values (single value or list).

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 fully (100% coverage). Description reiterates that omitting key lists all, which aligns with schema. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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

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

Clearly states the tool retrieves a specific value by key or lists all keys when omitted. Includes examples and distinguishes from sibling tools 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 concrete use cases (e.g., retrieving user's target ticker, address, prior notes) and advises pairing with remember/forget. Could explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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

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

The description claims mark_read:true flags events read, implying state mutation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. This contradicts the annotation.

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

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

Description is moderately concise with multiple sentences but each provides value. Could be slightly more structured, 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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and alternative access method. Missing output schema, but description compensates with field details. Suitable for a read tool with moderate complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds meaningful context beyond schema for parameters like mark_read (explains flagging behavior), since (ISO timestamp), and unread_only (return only unread).

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 pulls fired events from a subscription feed, with specific verbs (pull/returns) and resource (alerts). It mentions return fields and filtering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions though not explicitly.

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 guidance on filtering by type/since, using mark_read, and polling. Mentions alternative GET endpoint for scripts/dashboards. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing the data sources (SEC, GDELT, USPTO), fallback logic (GDELT→GNews), and soft-fail status for USPTO. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Description is relatively long but every sentence adds value, including example queries and fallback details. It is front-loaded with common query patterns. Could be slightly more concise, 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?

Covers multiple data sources, fallback behavior, parameter formats, and return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). No output schema, but description compensates. Missing explicit error handling details, but soft-fail is mentioned.

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 examples for the 'since' parameter (ISO date or relative shorthand) and notes that 'type' only supports 'company'. This provides useful context but does not significantly extend beyond schema.

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

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

Description clearly states it provides a change feed for a company, fanning out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, and USPTO. It distinguishes from sibling entity_profile by saying use that for static profile regardless of window.

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

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

Explicitly mentions when to use entity_profile instead, and gives example queries. Does not explicitly state when not to use recent_changes, but the context is clear that it is for dynamic change feeds within a window.

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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds scope (by identifier), persistence details (authenticated persistent, anonymous 24h), and pairing behavior. No contradictions.

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

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: main purpose first, then usage guidance, then scoping and pairing. No wasted words.

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

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

Tool has only 2 required parameters and no output schema. Description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits (persistence, scoping), and parameter examples. Fully sufficient for an agent to use 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds naming conventions (e.g., 'subject_property', 'target_ticker') and context for values (findings, addresses, preferences), enhancing the schema's 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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and clearly identifies the resource as 'data the agent will need to reuse later'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'forget' by mentioning them as paired actions.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and what not to do via pairing with 'recall' and 'forget'. Provides clear context for usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. Description adds internal cascading behavior, accepted input forms, and return fields (ticker, CIK, citation URIs), going well beyond annotations.

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

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

Front-loaded with examples, then purpose, then type details. Every sentence is valuable; no redundancy. Appropriate length.

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

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

No output schema, but description thoroughly explains return values for both entity types. Covers complexity of two lookup workflows and internal cascading.

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%, but description adds rich meaning: explains valid inputs for each type, auto-disambiguation, and what each parameter usage entails.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool resolves names to official identifiers, with specific examples like ticker, CIK, RxCUI. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on identifier lookup needed by other 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 advises 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' Provides context for when to use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds specific behavioral context: it probes each entity, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. 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?

Three sentences with clear, front-loaded information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The description is concise yet covers purpose, usage, and output.

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 the description sufficiently explains return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). Covers the main functionality and parameter intent, though missing details like error handling or pagination.

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 minor value by noting that the first entity in the array is treated as the 'subject' for narrative. Other parameter details (models, context) are already well described 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 the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check, and ranks results. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ai_visibility_check by focusing on multiple entities rather than a single one.

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 case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and example question. Implicitly differentiates from ai_visibility_check by describing how it probes multiple entities, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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, etc., but the description adds critical behavioral details: partial failures, bundlephobia timing (5-30s for first measurement), graceful degradation with sources_failed list, and that the rest still returns. 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 slightly long but well-structured: core purpose first, then use cases, ecosystem notes, and graceful degradation. Every sentence adds value, but could be a bit more concise without losing information.

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

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

No output schema, so description covers return values: summary block fields listed, plus per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions. Missing explicit error handling beyond partial failures, but adequate for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning: scoped packages like '@types/node' are accepted for the package parameter, and version defaults to latest when omitted. This adds value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it's a composite check for evaluating npm packages using deps.dev and bundlephobia, with specific verb+resource (scan_dependency for npm). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the npm ecosystem scope and mentioning alternatives like deps.dev:version for other ecosystems.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small' and gives concrete example. Also clarifies when not to use: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.' This provides clear context and exclusion.

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 the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), window size (500-char overlapping), character cap (200K with truncation and flagging), and that output includes character offsets for verification. This is comprehensive behavioral info.

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 7-8 sentences, packing essential details without unnecessary fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds technical specifics. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it's efficient for its content load.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (top-N passages with offsets and scores). It covers usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter examples, and pairing with a sibling tool. An agent has all necessary info to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats schema info (max chars for text, range and default for limit) but adds contextual examples for the query parameter. No significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record, using a natural-language query to return top passages with offsets and scores. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is for records too large for the prompt and that it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: when the record is too big to fit in the prompt. Also explains how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding over relevant passages, providing a clear usage context and alternative.

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

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

Description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: account requirement, subscription persistence, delivery channel limitations (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable), return of subscription id, and webhook signing details. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Description is long but information-dense and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then account requirements, types, and delivery channels. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Given the complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description covers account prerequisites, type examples, delivery constraints, and return value. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value with real-world examples for type and params, and detailed delivery channel explanations, exceeding 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions 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 context for usage: requires Pipeworx OAuth account, lists supported types with examples, and describes delivery channels and constraints. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' comparisons with 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 no destructiveness. The description adds that it returns example questions with tool+argument shapes from a live catalog, and explains calling conventions (no args vs. topic). 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 dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose. It efficiently covers trigger phrases, return format, and usage. Slightly more structure would improve, but it's concise and informative.

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 format in detail (category-bucketed questions with tool+argument shapes). It covers the optional parameter and provides context for when to use the tool. Complete for a discovery tool.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds examples ('finance', 'pharma', 'betting') and explains default behavior (full spread), going 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 is the onboarding entry point, returning category-bucketed example questions. It includes multiple trigger phrases and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the first tool to use when exploring Pipeworx capabilities.

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 this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and explains when to use the optional topic parameter. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the context from sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds critical context: ownership enforcement and deactivation (not deletion) with a link to recent_alerts for historical data, going beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by necessary behavioral details. 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with full schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral details (ownership, deactivation). No output schema is needed given the simplicity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema provides (id as uuid from subscribe). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles it.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and resource (subscription). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by emphasizing ownership enforcement and the 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 explicitly says when to use (to cancel a subscription by ID) and includes ownership enforcement (only own subscriptions). It implies when not to use by mentioning deactivation vs deletion, but does not list explicit alternatives or 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by revealing the data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL) and return components (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta). No contradictions; the description complements the annotations well.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with example queries and immediately states the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value (scope, returns, efficiency). Could be slightly tighter but remains well-structured.

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

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

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides all necessary context: when to use, what claims it handles, data sources, return format, and efficiency gains. It leaves no obvious gap for an agent to operate correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'claim' parameter. The description adds value by specifying the scope of supported claims (company-financial) and providing examples, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verifier, using example queries like 'Is it true that...' and specifying it checks factual accuracy against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself by stating it replaces multiple sequential calls, but does not directly contrast with sibling tools, though its purpose is unmistakable.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and gives concrete examples of supported claim types (company-financial). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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