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?
Description adds value beyond annotations by explaining deactivation (not deletion) and historical availability via 'recent_alerts', which supplements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint 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?
Two concise sentences: first states the action, second explains behavior. No redundant or extraneous 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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with annotations present, the description covers ownership, deactivation, and downstream impact on historical events, making it fully contextual.
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 extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the 'id' parameter (e.g., 'returned by subscribe'). Baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action 'Cancel a subscription by id' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.
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?
Description mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for other scenarios.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among the polymarket tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) and the ask_pipeworx variants. The detailed descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent might still misselect in those groups.
Tool names follow a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case. Minor deviations exist, such as 'remember' vs 'recall' and the mixed use of verbs and nouns (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'polymarket_arbitrage'), but overall the pattern is predictable.
With 35 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool serves a specific purpose, the sheer number may be overwhelming, and some subsets (like the 7 polymarket tools) could potentially be consolidated. Still, the scope justifies many of them.
The server covers a wide range of functionalities: Python package management, company research, prediction markets, monitoring, memory, and data queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for editing subscriptions), but the surface is generally comprehensive and well-rounded.