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?
Adds beyond annotations: ownership enforcement and soft deletion (deactivated not deleted) with hint about historical data via recent_alerts. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, so description complements them 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?
Two sentences front-loaded with verb and resource. Every sentence provides distinct value: cancellation action, ownership rule, and soft-delete behavior. No waste.
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 simple input (1 param), annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains the effect (deactivation, not deletion) and connects to related tool (recent_alerts). Complete for its 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 covers the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage) and describes it as a UUID from subscribe. Description merely refers to 'by id' without adding new semantics, 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?
Description specifies verb ('Cancel'), resource ('subscription'), and method ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' (creating) and 'list_subscriptions' (listing) by adding ownership enforcement and deactivation detail.
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?
States ownership enforcement as a usage constraint ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose and scope are adequate.
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 the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) could cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.
Tool names mix snake_case and camelCase inconsistently, with no strong verb_noun pattern. Examples include 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'discover_tools' vs 'validate_claim', indicating a lack of naming convention.
33 tools is high for a single server, including many utility tools (memory, subscriptions) that seem peripheral to the core regulatory/data domain. This suggests scope creep and could overwhelm agents.
The tool set covers a wide range of regulatory and financial data needs, including company profiles, entity comparison, claim validation, FDA catalysts, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for editing data), but overall it is comprehensive for its stated purpose.