Prh Fi

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) align with the description. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it probes multiple LLMs, returns scores with confidence and raw response, and notes that Anthropic calls cost the user. No contradictions. A slight deduction because it doesn't mention rate limits or potential delays.

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: three sentences that cover purpose, default behavior, key parameter nuance, and use cases. No fluff. Every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the main 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view). All four parameters are covered with meaningful context. For a 4-parameter tool with one required, this is complete and sufficient.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'models' defaults to workers-ai, that '_apiKey' is required only for Anthropic, and that 'context' helps disambiguate. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about entities and returns visibility scores per model. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic probing, and lists concrete use cases (AI-marketing audits, brand checks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on scored visibility.

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 good guidance on when to use the tool (visibility audits, brand checks) and explains the model selection and API key requirement. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning when not to use or comparing with similar tools, but the context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining routing logic, argument filling, and the return of structured answers with stable citation URIs, which goes 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?

The description is front-loaded with the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and uses bullet points for examples. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose in clarifying scope and usage. It balances detail with efficiency.

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 to 3,272 sub-tools), high schema coverage, and presence of annotations, the description adequately explains return values (structured answer with citation URIs). It could mention handling of ambiguous queries, but overall it's sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with 6 aliased parameters. The description states 'Your question or request in natural language' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Alias for question.' With high coverage, description adds limited extra value.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is for questions about current or historical data from authoritative sources, citing specific domains like SEC filings, FDA data, and more. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing structured data with citations and the large number of integrated tools, making its 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 explicitly instructs to prefer this tool over web search for factual queries and provides concrete examples of when to use it. While it doesn't delineate a clear 'when not to use', the context signals (sibling tools) imply alternatives for more specific tasks (e.g., get_company for company details).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it explains the resolution process, fan-out logic, response shapes, safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuit, closed market detection), and edge cases. It explicitly warns about resolution confidence and spread illiquidity, providing transparency 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?

The description is well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, and safety notes. While it is verbose, every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity. It could be slightly more concise, but the detail is justified for such a multifaceted tool.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all input types, resolution logic, fan-out details, response fields (market, analysis, evidence), safety mechanisms, and edge cases (low confidence, closed markets, illiquid spreads). No critical information is missing for an AI 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%, but the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the 'market' parameter accepts slug, URL, or question text with examples; 'depth' options (quick vs thorough) with contextual advice; 'include_raw' with practical use cases (e.g., 'when you need to recompute deltas'). This goes beyond the schema's basic types and defaults.

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 (Polymarket bet) and action (research) and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on comprehensive data gathering.

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 when to use the tool: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also provides detailed fan-out examples and classifiers, giving clear context for appropriate use. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the extensive examples and focus on research vs. arbitrage/edges imply the 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 non-destructive nature, so the description bears less burden. It adds transparency about data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), a fix for off-calendar fiscal years, and that results are sorted by primary metric. 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 moderately long but front-loaded with core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds information, though some technical details (e.g., 'off-calendar fiscal years' fix) could be simplified. Overall, it is reasonably concise for the complexity.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains returns ('paired data + citation URIs') and sorting. For a tool with two entity types and no nested objects, this is sufficient. It could mention edge cases like missing data, but the openWorldHint annotation covers uncertainty to some degree.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds substantial value by explaining type-specific behavior, value range (2-5), example values, and result sorting. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal enum/array descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states it compares 2-5 companies or drugs side by side, with specific use cases ('compare X and Y', 'X vs Y'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like entity_profile or search_companies, which could confuse an agent deciding between single-entity lookup and multi-entity comparison.

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 gives clear when-to-use scenarios but lacks when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives. For example, it does not say 'use entity_profile for a single entity' or 'use search_companies for broader company search'. The context is adequate but incomplete for full decision support.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context, such as returning 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that each result is 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' No contradictions found.

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, well-structured paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage guidance, return value, and an upfront instruction. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 parameters, many siblings) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: a list of tools with names, descriptions, and full schemas. It covers the typical use case and provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by explaining that 'query' accepts natural language and listing aliases (task, q, search, description). It also provides examples and notes default limit (20) and max (50), adding 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 the tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and lists numerous example domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.). It distinctly separates this discovery tool from its siblings, which perform specific actions like getting company data or scanning competitors.

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 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear guidance on when to use it (first, for browsing) and implies when to avoid it (when you already know 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?

The description details return fields (cik, filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents with sunset note, news, LEI) and caveats like 'fundamentals ... Run 6 fix landed real FY2025 numbers'. Annotations are consistent with read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph but efficiently front-loads the main purpose, then systematically lists return components with inline caveats. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively explains all major return sections, including current status of patents and fundamentals, and input constraints. This leaves little ambiguity for an AI 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 description adds meaning: explains type enum (only 'company' for now) and value (ticker or CIK with examples, names unsupported). This goes beyond schema documentation.

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 starts with 'Get everything about a US public company in one call' and lists specific use cases like 'tell me about X', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as get_company and search_companies by emphasizing it replaces multiple calls.

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 (user asks for company info) and when not to (names not supported), directing to resolve_entity for names. Also notes limitations like patents soft-failing.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data, but this is minimal incremental value 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance, making it highly concise 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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter meaning fully with 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the schema's 'Memory key to delete' without adding additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already 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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' which pairs a specific verb with a resource, and it is well-distinguished from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall'.

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 scenarios (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and references sibling tools, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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. Description adds that it fetches the page and extracts key links, which is consistent and provides additional context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences covering purpose, process, and output, followed by a list of use cases. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains behavior and output format. It could mention that it works with any public URL, but is sufficient for correct usage.

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 both parameters described. The description does not add new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score applies.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for AI crawlers, with specific actions (fetches, extracts, emits). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated to llms.txt generation.

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

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

The description lists explicit use cases (indexing client sites, drafting own project, auditing competitors), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds detail on return fields and language codes, which is useful context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Comprehensive for a single-param lookup: lists return fields, format, language codes. No output schema, but description substitutes adequately. Missing error handling or rate limits but acceptable.

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% with clear description. Description provides example, format, and explains language code numbering, adding 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?

Description states 'Full register record for one Finnish company by businessId', specifies format and example. Clearly distinguishes from sibling search_companies by requiring exact ID.

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?

Implies use when businessId is known, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. No mention of search_companies for lookup without ID.

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 explains behavioral traits beyond annotations: rate-limited to 5 per day, free, doesn't count against tool-call quota, and team reads digests daily. No annotation 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 concise and well-structured, starting with purpose, then guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff. It efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (feedback submission), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameter details, rate limits, and behavioral notes. No output schema is needed; the description is complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains the enum values for 'type', provides guidance on 'message' (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), and clarifies 'context' usage (optional structured context). This greatly helps the agent.

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: to tell the Pipeworx team about broken/missing features or praise. It specifies use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes from siblings as no other tool is for feedback.

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 scenarios (e.g., 'when a tool returns wrong/stale data') and advice on what to avoid (don't paste end-user prompt). It mentions rate limits and free usage, but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds beyond this by explaining the data source (CF analytics-engine), privacy (no PII), and caching behavior (5min-1h), providing full transparency.

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 and well-structured: one-sentence summary, then return data, then bullet-point use cases, then source/caching info. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return data (top tools, packs, total call volume) and caching. Could optionally mention if there are limits on number of results, but not a major gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with enum and description for 'window'. The description adds context that shorter windows surface current hotness and longer windows show steady-state demand, which adds meaning beyond the enum values.

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 trending tool usage data (top tools, packs, call volume) over recent windows. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'discover_tools' by focusing on call frequency and recency.

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 three specific use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, aligning with agent needs) but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives.

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

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). It adds significant context: monotonicity violations, partition checks, Jaccard similarity filtering, and placeholder handling. This goes beyond annotations, providing full behavioral transparency.

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 detailed and well-structured, with clear sections for modes, filters, and response format. It is somewhat dense but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (opportunities array with fields, partition_check in event mode). It covers edge cases like placeholder filtering, similarity thresholds, and null signals. The description is complete for effective use.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description enhances this by explaining the role of each parameter with examples (e.g., event slug format, topic seed question). It adds practical context not present in the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It specifies two distinct modes (event and topic) with concrete examples, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' and 'polymarket_kalshi_spread'.

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

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

The description explains when to use each mode: pass an event slug for single-event analysis, or a seed question for cross-event scanning. It highlights the benefit of cross-event mode for catching date-range patterns. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and provides actionable guidance.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by detailing the caching behavior ('Cached 1h at the KV level'), the internal model families, edge calculation logic, and response structure including diagnostics. 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 detailed and well-structured with clear sections for different segments and knobs. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose; some technical details could be condensed, but the complexity justifies the 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the response contains (model-driven, structural arbitrage, concentrated longshot segments, diagnostics, fed note). It also covers edge cases like empty segments and filter behaviors, making it nearly complete for a tool of this 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds value by providing additional context for parameters like slippage_pp (explaining default rationale) and min_partition_leg_kelly (clarifying interaction with partition arbs), but the schema already does a good job.

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 'Scan' and clearly states the resource 'Polymarket markets' and the unique value proposition: returning opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on 'what should I bet on today' and detailing model families.

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

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

The description includes explicit guidance for usage contexts like 'Built for what should I bet on today' and explains the different segments and filters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or provide clear when-not-to-use scenarios, though the detail implicitly covers much.

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

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

Discloses all behavioral traits beyond annotations: details on compatibility_warning conditions, temporal alignment checks, and skipped pair counters. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, and description adds rich 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?

Well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded purpose, and detailed explanation of response and safety fields. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value; a minor trim 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?

Fully explains response structure without output schema, covers edge cases (compatibility_warning, temporal misalignment), and addresses real-world rarity of tradeable spreads. Complete for a complex tool with no 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions, but description adds significant value by explaining the two operational modes, how explicit parameters override topic, and giving concrete examples. Baseline 3, extra context justifies 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?

Description clearly states the tool computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, with two modes and detailed response structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' implicitly by focusing on cross-venue rather than within-venue 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?

Provides explicit context on when spreads are meaningful via compatibility_warning and temporal_alignment, and notes that pre-mapped topics are not necessarily tradeable. Does not directly compare to sibling tools but gives clear usage scenarios for the two modes.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context beyond annotations: scoping to agent identifier, pairing with remember/forget, and the effect of omitting the key argument.

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 purposeful: first states core action, second provides usage context, third explains pairing and scope. No redundant or verbose content; front-loaded with key 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains return values (retrieved value or list of keys) and covers scoping, pairing, and usage of the optional parameter. Sufficient for a simple retrieval 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 a clear description for the single 'key' parameter. The description adds that omitting key lists all keys, which is useful but not extensive. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 specifies verb 'retrieve' and resource 'value previously saved via remember' with clear distinction from siblings 'remember' (save) and 'forget' (delete). It also states the alternative behavior of listing keys when key is omitted.

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 context for when to use (look up stored context) and when to omit key (list all keys). Mentions pairing with remember and forget. However, no explicit 'when not to use' scenario is given, though the sibling context implicitly covers 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 provide safety profile. Description adds valuable behavioral details: parallel fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews fallback, USPTO soft-fail, and structured return format. 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 dense and informative, but slightly long. Could benefit from bullet points for readability, but no extraneous content.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description covers return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). All necessary context for a parameter-light tool with complex behavior.

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 enriches understanding: explains type enum restriction, value accepts ticker or CIK, since examples and relative shorthand. Adds context 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 starts with clear query: "What's new with a company in the last N days/months?" and lists explicit use cases. It distinguishes from sibling entity_profile by specifying when to use each.

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 when-to-use scenarios and contrasts with entity_profile. Covers input format details (ISO date vs relative shorthand) and sources with fallback logic.

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

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds useful context: key-value pairing, scoping by identifier, and persistence differences between authenticated and anonymous sessions.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral details. No redundant words.

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

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

Fully self-contained: explains purpose, when to use, behavior, and relationship to siblings. No additional context needed.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds example conventions for key naming and clarifies value is any text, enhancing understanding.

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 saves data for reuse, with specific examples like resolved ticker or user preference. Differentiates from siblings recall and forget.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use: when discovering something worth carrying forward to avoid re-lookup. Mentions pairing with recall and forget for complementary operations.

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 valuable context by explaining internal cascading through multiple endpoints and that it replaces manual lookups, which goes beyond the 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and detailed type explanations. It is efficient without being overly verbose, though a slight reduction in internal details could improve conciseness without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values for both types and internal behavior. It covers usage context but omits error handling or edge cases, which prevents a perfect score.

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 significant meaning by detailing the return values for each type (e.g., company returns ticker, CIK, company_name, citation URI) and providing input examples, which the schema alone does not capture.

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 user-spoken names to canonical identifiers using verbs like 'Resolve' and specifies the resource ('entity'). It distinguishes itself by noting it replaces 2-3 manual lookups and lists supported types with return values, making it highly distinct from sibling tools.

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

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

The description explicitly advises 'Use FIRST when you have a name but need an ID', providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the instruction implies precedence over other 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list. This is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format: 'ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'. It also mentions the entity range (2-8) as noted in schema. Complete for the complexity level.

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. The description adds value by explaining that the first entity is treated as 'subject' for narrative and that context disambiguates common names. This provides semantic nuance 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 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' and explains the process of probing, ranking, and surfacing which is most/least recognized. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check by focusing on multi-entity comparison for competitive audits.

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 it is 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives a concrete example question. It implies use when comparing multiple entities, and context suggests for single entity use ai_visibility_check. No explicit when-not-to-use, but clear enough.

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?

Goes beyond annotations by detailing composite nature, fans out to deps.dev and bundlephobia, partial failure handling (sources_failed), and timing caveat (5-30s for new version measurement). Aligns with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint.

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?

Single paragraph but well-organized with key points upfront. Every sentence provides value, though slightly lengthy. No waste, but could be broken into bullet points for readability.

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?

Describes return structure (summary block, advisory detail, links, alternative versions), covers edge cases (scoped packages, default version), and limitations (only NPM, bundlephobia timing). Without output schema, this is thorough.

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

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

Schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds context: scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest. This adds meaning beyond schema, though schema coverage is 100%.

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

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

Description clearly states it is a composite check for adding npm packages, covering license, advisories, bundle size, etc. The verb 'scan_dependency' and resource are well-defined, and it distinguishes from siblings by being npm-specific.

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 agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost. Also specifies limitation to NPM ecosystem in v1 and suggests alternative for other ecosystems via deps.dev:version.

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, open-world, idempotent. Description adds response format (totalResults, companies) and field details. 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?

Concise paragraph with front-loaded purpose, response format, and examples. 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?

Fully explains usage for 6 optional parameters, response shape, and relationship to sibling tool. Adequate without 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%. Description adds examples and usage hints (e.g., businessId for exact lookup, companyForm codes like '17').

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

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

Clearly states it searches the Finnish business register by name/filters. Distinguishes from get_company for exact lookup.

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 to use businessId for exact lookup or call get_company. Provides example queries like {name:"Nokia"} and {name:"Oy", location:"Helsinki", companyForm:"17"}.

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 signal safety (readOnly, idempotent). Description adds behavioral context: returns a verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta. No contradiction.

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

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

Concise 4-sentence description that front-loads purpose, includes usage context, scope, and output details. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return values and scope. With annotations covering safety, the description is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters, with description for 'claim'. The tool description adds real-world examples ('Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: fact-check, verify, validate, or confirm/refute factual claims. It specifies the resource (company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR), using strong verbs and differentiating from sibling tools.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example queries and notes it replaces multiple sequential calls. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the scope is clear.

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