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 mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). Description adds that the row is deactivated (soft delete) and ownership is enforced, which aligns with and extends the annotation context without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every sentence provides essential context.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation behavior, ownership constraint, and data persistence, making it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter. The description reinforces that the id comes from 'subscribe' but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Cancel a subscription by id', specifies the resource (subscription), and distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by highlighting ownership enforcement and soft-delete 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?
Explicitly states when to use ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and implies when not to use (if not the owner). Also clarifies that the row is deactivated, not deleted, so historical events are still accessible via recent_alerts.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but pairs like ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded and bet_research/polymarket_edges could cause confusion without careful reading. Overall, descriptions are clear enough to differentiate.
Names are snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun pattern, but several are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage) creating inconsistency. Still readable due to descriptive terms.
33 tools is slightly high but justified given the broad scope (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). Each tool serves a specific role, so the count feels appropriate for the platform's capabilities.
The tool set covers data retrieval, prediction market analysis, memory management, and subscriptions well. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct betting tool), but core workflows are supported comprehensively.