list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about scope (caller's subscriptions) and returned fields, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations suggest.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences that cover purpose, output fields, and usage guidance. There is no wasted text, and the structure is clear.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists returned fields and provides usage context. It could mention any limits or ordering, but overall it is adequate.
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 'include_inactive' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe', which perform different 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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to review monitoring before adding more subscriptions or to find an ID to cancel. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping purposes (all answer questions via a universal router), with only subtle distinctions (beta version, grounded mode). Additionally, many tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity all pull SEC/company data, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research all relate to prediction markets, creating potential confusion. However, each tool does have a somewhat distinct purpose and detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so it's not extreme overlap.
Tool names are mostly lowercase with underscores (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'compare_entities', 'resolve_entity'), but there's a mix of verb-first (bulk_splits, list_subscriptions) and noun-first (data_types, get_quote) patterns. Also 'aggregates' and 'grouped_daily' both fetch bars but have different naming styles. The naming is inconsistent with no clear uniform pattern, and some names are vague like 'helpers' or 'utility-*'.
43 tools is quite heavy for a single MCP server, exceeding the typical 15-25 range for 'too many'. While the server aggregates many different domains (Polygon stocks, Pipeworx data, Polymarket, npm, etc.), the sheer number makes it overwhelming for an agent to discover and select the right tool. Many tools are meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools) that add complexity rather than mapping to a clear domain.
The server covers a huge range of operations: stock data (retrieve, search, details), prediction markets (arbitrage, edges, research, fill risk), entity resolution, subscriptions, memory, and meta-tools. There are some gaps like no obvious tool for modifying stock data (not expected) and the Polymarket side lacks a tool for placing actual trades or managing positions. But overall the surface is quite complete for a comprehensive data/research server.