Ripe Stat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it returns 'official abuse-contact email(s) drawn from RIR records,' which provides additional context but does not disclose new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise sentence with embedded examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose, uses minimal words, and earns every character. No wasted 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, high schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns, for what purpose, and provides example 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 description coverage is 100% with the property 'resource' described as 'IP, prefix, or ASN'. The main description repeats this and adds alternative phrasings and an example, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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's purpose: looking up official abuse-contact email(s) for an IP, prefix, or ASN from RIR records. It uses specific verbs and resources ('abuse contact', 'report spam') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'whois' and 'network_info' by focusing solely on abuse reporting.

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 the use case: 'Use for spam/abuse/DDoS report routing.' While it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, the intended context is clear and sufficient for this focused 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?

Annotations already indicate safe, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds value by explaining default model (free) and BYO Anthropic key for paid calls, plus return structure.

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 and key info. 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?

Covers usage, parameters, return values despite no output schema. Slight gap on error conditions or rate limits, but adequate for typical 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage. Description adds context beyond schema: default model, key passing mechanics, and per-model return details.

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?

Clear verb 'probe' and specific resource 'LLMs for what they know about a business/brand/product/topic' with a scoring output. Distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by being more generic.

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 use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions, but context is clear.

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 true. The description adds value by explaining it routes to 3,436 tools, fills arguments, and returns pipeworx:// citation URIs. 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?

The description is informative and front-loaded with the key directive. All sentences add value; it is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

For a complex meta-tool with a simple input schema, the description covers what the tool does and how to use it with examples. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it lacks details on error handling or latency.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds meaning by showing examples and explaining aliases for the 'question' parameter, enhancing usability.

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: routing factual questions to specialized tools and returning structured answers with citations. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly preferring it over web search and listing specific domains (SEC filings, FDA data, etc.).

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 guidance: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and lists numerous examples of questions to use. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the positive guidelines are strong and clear.

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, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data comes from RIPE RIS route collectors and reflects observed BGP neighbours, which goes beyond the annotations by specifying the data source and observational nature.

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 sentences: first provides alternative query patterns, second states purpose and use cases. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema needed due to existing output schema), the description adequately covers the data source (RIPE RIS), purpose, and use cases. No gaps remain for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 description coverage is 100% (parameter 'asn' described as 'AS number'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 it retrieves BGP neighbours of an AS observed by RIPE RIS, provides alternative query phrasings, and specifies use cases (transit/peering analysis, topology mapping). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like as_overview (basic AS details) or bgp_state (BGP state).

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 'Use for transit / peering analysis, network topology mapping,' giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with specific sibling tools, missing some guidance on 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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (holder, country, AS type, allocation date), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. 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?

The description is concise, with three sentences that are front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.

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 tool with an existing output schema, the description is complete. It lists the key fields returned and the input format. No additional context is 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'asn' parameter. The description adds input format examples ('AS15169' or '15169'), which is helpful but not extensive. Baseline is 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a summary for an ASN including holder organization, country, AS type, and allocation date. It provides example queries and specifies the use case for network attribution and BGP analysis. This is a specific verb+resource with examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like asn_neighbours or entity_profile.

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 'Use for network attribution, BGP analysis,' guiding when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. Given the sibling tools list, the usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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 provides extensive behavioral details beyond annotations, including fan-out patterns, resolver confidence, parent event extraction, news fallback mechanisms, safety logic for low-confidence and closed markets, and liquidity warnings. All annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) are consistent and the description adds rich context.

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 long but well-structured with headings, examples, and bullet-like lists. Every section adds useful information. It could be slightly more concise, but the front-loading of purpose and the logical flow make it effective.

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 and lack of output schema, the description thoroughly documents return shapes (result.market, result.analysis, result.evidence), resolver contract with confidence levels, parent event extractor, news fields with fallback, and various status conditions. It covers all critical aspects an agent needs to understand and 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description further adds value by explaining how parameters like 'depth' affect behavior (quick vs thorough) and provides examples of 'market' input types. However, the schema already covers baseline meaning.

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 then details what it does (resolve, classify, fan out, return evidence packet and comparison). This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges which have different focuses.

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: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' This provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternatives like polymarket_edges beyond the different focus.

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, open-world behavior. The description adds context that the tool queries live BGP table data, which is consistent with annotations. It does not contradict any annotation and provides additional behavioral detail (e.g., 'current routing state').

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 example queries and then stating the core functionality. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter, clear annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It explains the tool's purpose, use cases, and parameter semantics adequately. No critical information is missing.

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 of the 'resource' parameter. The description enhances this by providing example values ('8.8.8.0/24', 'AS15169') and context on what constitutes a resource (IP, prefix, or ASN). It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the parameter's role in the tool's function.

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 defines the tool's purpose: to retrieve origin ASNs and AS-path lengths for a given resource from the global BGP table. It provides concrete use cases (detect BGP hijacks, audit route propagation, find anycast announcers) and example queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'asn_neighbours' or 'as_overview'.

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: for BGP hijack checks, route propagation auditing, and anycast discovery. It implies usage context through examples but does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternative tools. However, the guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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?

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: describes data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with citation URIs. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint.

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?

Front-loaded with natural language triggers, information-dense yet efficient. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Without output schema, description accounts for return values (paired data + citation URIs), key metrics per type, sorting, and source. Covers essential aspects for an 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying that 'values' should be tickers/CIKs for company and drug names for drug, and explains what data is fetched for each type.

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 side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, using verbs like compare, rank, and head-to-head. It distinguishes from sequential lookups and sibling tools like entity_profile.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Query examples further illustrate applicability.

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 and non-destructive behavior. Description adds that each result is ready to call directly with no second schema lookup, which is useful context 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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. The list of domains is slightly verbose but provides useful context. Efficient overall.

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?

No output schema, but description clearly explains return value (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas, examples). Usage context is fully covered given the tool's purpose.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions a 'query' parameter but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. No contradiction.

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 that the tool finds tools by describing data or task, listing numerous domains. It distinguishes from siblings as a meta-tool for discovery, not a specific data source tool.

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 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer),' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: parallel fan-out across sources, specific data fields returned, patent API sunset soft-failure, and GDELT→GNews fallback. 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?

Single dense paragraph with front-loaded examples and key instruction. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with repeated examples. Could be broken into bullet points for readability, but still effective.

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 sources, rich output), the description covers all essential aspects: use case, parameters, return fields, limitations, fallbacks. No output schema needed as description explains returns comprehensively.

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% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning: for type, it clarifies only 'company' supported and hints at future types; for value, it explains ticker/CIK format and reiterates name restriction, going 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?

The description uses specific verbs (profile, brief) and clearly identifies the resource (US public company). It distinguishes itself from chaining single-source lookups, and lists return fields. Examples anchor the purpose.

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 preference over chaining lookups for holistic views, and warns that names are not supported, advising use of resolve_entity. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data and stale context, which goes beyond annotations. 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?

Two sentences: first states the action, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words; 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context. It could mention return behavior (e.g., success/failure), but given low complexity, it is mostly 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% with a basic description for the 'key' parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond 'Memory key to delete,' so it meets the baseline for high 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?

The description starts with 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by explicitly mentioning them.

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: 'context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also advises pairing with 'remember' and 'recall,' implying 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 declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds detailed behavioral context: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown format. 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?

The description is concise with only 3 sentences: stating purpose, summarizing process, and listing use cases. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers functionality, output format, and use cases. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable for a read-only tool with good annotations.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's documentation of 'url' and 'max_links', meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 any URL, specifying the resource and output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which cover different functionalities (e.g., abuse_contact, whois).

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 projects, auditing competitors), providing context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, which would make it fully explicit.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds beyond that: explains it is registration-based (not GeoIP), notes accuracy limitations (ownership vs physical location), and defines scope (compliance/jurisdiction). 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?

Two concise sentences + a note. Every sentence adds value: purpose, accuracy caveat, use case. No 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?

Given output schema exists, annotations cover safety and idempotence, and description explains domain-specific nuance (registration vs GeoIP), the tool is fully documented for correct 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 has 100% coverage with one parameter 'resource' described as 'IP or prefix'. Description repeats the format in examples but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what schema and examples provide. 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides country geolocation from RIR registration data, includes natural language examples like 'What country is IP [X] in', and distinguishes itself from GeoIP by specifying the source and accuracy scope.

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 guides when to use (compliance/jurisdiction where registry truth matters) and warns against using for physical location. Also implies preferred alternative (GeoIP) for physical location.

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 context about what the tool returns (allocated prefix and ASN) but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. With annotations present, the description's added value is moderate.

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 core action and includes natural language examples and use cases. It is slightly longer than necessary but each sentence is informative. Could be more concise but is not verbose.

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 parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, provides usage context, and gives concrete examples. Combined with rich annotations, no additional behavioral or contextual info seems 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 description coverage is 100% (single parameter described as 'IPv4/IPv6 address'). The description repeats this same information in the examples, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 resolves an IP address to its prefix and originating ASN, with example queries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like asn_neighbours, prefix_overview, or whois, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 use cases such as 'which network owns this IP', 'DDoS source attribution', and 'hosting-provider lookup', giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or 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?

Discloses rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, that it's free and doesn't count against tool-call quota, and that signal affects roadmap. Annotations don't provide these details, so description adds substantial behavioral context.

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 covering purpose, usage, constraints, and format. Efficient but slightly dense; could be broken into bullet points. Still clear and front-loaded.

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?

Covers all aspects: input parameters, use cases, constraints (rate limit, quota), and how feedback is used. No output schema needed; description is complete for a feedback submission 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 has 100% coverage, so base is 3. Description adds value by explaining enum types in detail (e.g., 'bug = something broke') and clarifying the optional context object and message format. Slightly above baseline.

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 reporting bugs, feature requests, data gaps, or praise about Pipeworx itself. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by specifying it's for feedback about the platform, not for general queries.

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 lists when to use (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides guidance on what not to do (avoid pasting end-user prompts). Includes rate limits and quota information, helping the agent decide when to invoke.

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 behavioral context: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, cache duration (5min-1h), and the aggregate structure (pack, tool, count). There is 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?

The description is well-structured with front-loaded output, use cases, and data source details. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise; the use case list is helpful but adds 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?

Given a single simple parameter, full annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, its caching behavior, and data provenance. Nothing essential is missing.

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 one parameter (window) and a clear enum description. The description adds semantic guidance: 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This enhances 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 begins with a clear action: 'Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window.' It specifies the resource (Pipeworx trend data) and provides three concrete use cases, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like discover_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 lists three use cases for when to use this tool, giving clear context about its purpose. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: the tool fails without args, uses a similarity threshold of 0.30, filters placeholder partitions, and returns null arb signal for high placeholder fractions. 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?

The description is dense and front-loads the requirement, but it contains some redundancy (e.g., partition filter explained twice). While thorough, it could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 (two modes, filters, similarity thresholds, response with opportunities and partition_check), the description covers the key aspects. There is no output schema, but the response structure is described. It is reasonably complete for an AI agent to understand 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% but the description adds significant meaning: explains event vs topic modes, gives example slugs, notes that full Polymarket URLs are accepted, and describes the semantic anchor and partition filter logic. This goes well beyond the schema's brief property 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 the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) with specific use cases, and the verb+resource combination is precise, 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 explicitly requires one of event or topic, explains when to use each mode (single-event recommended for specific markets, cross-event for scanning related topics), and provides example inputs. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description details model families, edge calculations, caching, diagnostics, and tradeable-edge knobs, providing extensive behavioral context.

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 dense and technically detailed, front-loaded with purpose but overall lengthy; could be more concise while retaining essential 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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains return values including segments, edge calculations, diagnostics, and knob effects, making it very 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 baseline is 3. The description adds context on how knobs like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp affect realizability, offering 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 scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, specifically for betting decisions, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on Pipeworx data vs. market price.

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 mentions it's for 'what should I bet on today' and avoids paging hundreds of markets, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings like polymarket_arbitrage.

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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: it details response structure, safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment), and edge cases (non-equivalent bet shapes, semantically unrelated events). 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?

The description is well-structured with sections (modes, response, safety fields) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be slightly more concise while retaining 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively covers the response structure, safety fields, and edge cases. It explains compatibility_warning conditions, temporal_alignment, and leg comparison counters. This is complete for a complex 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 all parameters described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the two modes (topic vs explicit), listing the 10 pre-mapped topic values, and clarifying that explicit parameters override the topic-mapped side.

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 computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage (intra-Polymarket) and polymarket_edges (single-venue edges) by focusing on cross-venue 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 explains when to use (to find arbitrage opportunities between venues when outcomes are equivalently framed) and when not (when compatibility_warning fires, spreads are meaningless). It does not explicitly name alternative tools but provides clear context for appropriate use.

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, etc. Description adds that the tool aggregates data from multiple sources into a summary. 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?

Two efficient lines: first line provides alternative phrasings, second line states purpose and usage advice. No filler, 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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'resource' parameter. The description reinforces meaning with aliases ('[CIDR]', 'IP block [X/Y]'). Adds 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a 'comprehensive summary for an IP prefix' listing specific data types (BGP announcements, origin ASes, allocation history) and distinguishes from sibling tools by suggesting it replaces chaining bgp_state + whois.

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 recommends using this tool to 'understand a whole IP block at once instead of chaining bgp_state + whois', providing a clear use case and alternative. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but context signals 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: scoping to identifier, behavior when key omitted, and pairing with remember/forget.

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 serving a clear purpose: purpose, usage, and scoping. Front-loaded with main action. 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?

Simple tool with one optional param and no output schema; description covers retrieval, listing, scoping, and relationship to siblings. 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 coverage is 100%, description adds meaning by explaining the behavior when the optional 'key' parameter is omitted (lists all keys).

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 verb (retrieve/list) and resource (values/keys), and distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'forget' by specifying the save/delete pairing.

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 (look up saved context) and provides context scoping, but 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.

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it fans out to multiple sources (SEC, GDELT→GNews, USPTO), explains fallback logic (GDELT→GNews when rate-limited or 5xx), notes USPTO soft-fail due to API sunset, and describes the return structure (grouped changes, total count, citation URIs).

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: it starts with common user queries, then explains the tool's overall behavior, followed by parameter details, and ends with a sibling comparison. 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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return format (structured changes[], total_changes count, citation URIs) and the data sources. It covers error handling (fallback, soft-fail). However, it could be more complete by detailing what fields each source's changes contain or pagination behavior. Given the complexity and three required parameters, it is quite complete but leaves minor gaps in output specifics.

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 adds value by explaining the `since` parameter's accepted formats (ISO date or relative shorthand like '7d', '30d') with a typical monitoring recommendation. The `type` parameter's limitation to 'company' is reiterated. The `value` parameter is clarified as ticker or CIK. While the schema already provides descriptions, the description enhances usability with concrete examples and best-practice suggestions.

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: a change feed for a company in a date window, using example queries like 'What's new with X' and 'latest on Y'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'entity_profile' by explicitly contrasting the use cases.

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 when to use this tool versus the sibling 'entity_profile' ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile regardless of window'). It also provides guidance on the `since` parameter with typical monitoring suggestions ('30d' or '1m').

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?

Adds context beyond annotations: scoped by identifier, persistent for authenticated users, 24-hour memory for anonymous. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. 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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose with examples, but each sentence adds value. Efficient overall.

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?

Covers scope, persistence, pairing with recall/forget. No output schema needed. Adequate for a simple write 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%; descriptions for key and value are present. Description adds example values but does not significantly extend semantics 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?

The description clearly states the tool saves data for reuse, specifies verb 'Save' and resource 'data' with explicit examples like resolved ticker, address, preference. It distinguishes 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 states when to use: discover something worth carrying forward. Mentions pairing with recall/forget. No explicit when-not, but context is clear.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds rich behavioral details: return fields for each type, auto-disambiguation for company, and internal cascading across multiple endpoints.

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 focused paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then details for each supported type. Every sentence contributes meaning without repetition.

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 explains return values for both supported types, including citation URIs. It covers input variations and internal behavior, making it complete for the tool's role as an identifier resolver.

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 significant value beyond schema: examples for type enum, detailed input formats for value (e.g., ticker, CIK, name for company; brand or generic for drug).

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: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifier'. It provides concrete example queries and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as 'Use FIRST' for name-to-ID resolution.

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 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing a clear when-to-use guideline. It also notes that each call replaces 2-3 manual lookups, reinforcing utility.

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=false. The description adds value by revealing it probes each entity with 'ai_visibility_check', ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. 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?

Three sentences: purpose, mechanism, use case. No extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but the description specifies return format ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'). It covers all parameters and usage context. Could mention pagination or limits, but 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: it notes the first entity is treated as the subject and that 'context' disambiguates common names, enhancing understanding 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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities, using the verb 'Compare' and resource 'multiple entities'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check' by noting it calls that tool internally and ranks results.

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 explicit use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and suggests comparing 'your brand + N competitors'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is 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?

Annotations are consistent (readOnly, idempotent). Description adds important behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed lists timeouts. This goes 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 information-dense but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more concise without losing details. Front-loaded with purpose, but overall length is acceptable.

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?

No output schema exists, but description lists all return fields (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and covers failure modes, making it complete for agent understanding.

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 both parameters fully. Description adds context: package field notes scoped packages are accepted, version field clarifies it defaults to latest. No missing semantics.

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: a composite check for npm packages covering license, security, size, and tree-shaking support. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact scope (npm ecosystem) and the integrated services (deps.dev and bundlephobia).

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 an agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost. Also provides guidance for other ecosystems, directing to deps.dev:version directly.

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 value by detailing the return format (verdict types, structured form, citation, percent delta) and the data source (SEC EDGAR+XBRL). It also specifies the domain restriction. 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 a single paragraph but efficiently packed with information: trigger phrases, usage guidance, domain, source, output structure, and efficiency benefit. It is front-loaded with key phrases. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it remains concise.

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?

The tool is complex with multiple return values and domain constraints. The description covers all necessary elements: trigger phrases, domain (company-financial claims for public US companies), data source (SEC EDGAR+XBRL), output format (verdict types, structured form, citation, percent delta), and efficiency improvement. No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains return values.

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% as the claim parameter has a clear description. The description reinforces this with examples and usage context but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It lists trigger phrases like 'Is it true that…' and specifies the domain (company-financial claims for public US companies via SEC EDGAR+XBRL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform claim verification.

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 when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also specifies the domain (company-financial claims), implying it should not be used for other types. It mentions it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, highlighting efficiency. While it doesn't name alternatives, the sibling list shows no similar tools, so the guidance is clear.

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, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: aggregated data across five RIRs, specific returned fields, and the types of resources accepted. 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose, include examples, and state use cases. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given only one required parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns, satisfying all informational needs.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds concrete examples and clarifies the resource format (IP, prefix, AS number). This extra context enhances understanding beyond the schema's property description.

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 performs a Whois lookup for IP/ASN/prefix, specifies the returned fields (registrant org, registration country, abuse contacts, allocation date), and includes example queries. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools that focus on other network data.

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 use cases: 'Use for IP ownership, abuse-response, network forensics.' While it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, the provided context is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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