Schemastore

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds non-contradictory context: probing multiple models, scoring, BYO key for Anthropic, return structure. 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?

Description is well-structured, front-loaded with the main function, then details parameters and use cases. Slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed, but still clear.

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 4 parameters fully described in schema and no output schema, the description provides necessary return structure and use cases. It is complete enough for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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 value by clarifying that 'workers-ai' is free default, '_apiKey' is only needed for Anthropic, and 'context' helps disambiguate. This extra context justifies a 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?

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs to score visibility (0-100) per model, with a specific verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities by focusing on LLM knowledge rather than general entity info.

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?

Explicit use cases listed: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It also explains default model and optional Anthropic key, but does not explicitly state when not to use 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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it routes to 4,774 tools, returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs, and works on every tier. It does not contradict 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 lengthy but justified by the tool's complexity. It front-loads the key directive ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and then uses clear sections: what it does, examples, when to use, when to step up. A bit verbose but well-organized.

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 broad scope and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the routing mechanism, citation URIs, usage alternatives, and provides many concrete examples covering diverse domains. No gaps remain.

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 goes beyond by providing extensive examples of valid questions, explaining the parameter accepts natural language, and listing many aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). This adds significant value for an AI agent understanding how to phrase queries.

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: answering factual questions about current/historical data from a vast array of sources. It lists specific data types (SEC filings, FDA, FRED, etc.) and provides numerous example questions, differentiating it from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and gives detailed when-to-use guidance, including trigger phrases like 'what is', 'look up', 'find'. It also tells when to step up to alternative tools (ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded answers, deep_research for broad questions), making the usage context very 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains the exact refusal reasons, the return structure (answer, evidence, confidence, etc.), the one extra LLM call cost, and that it extracts answers only from tool results. 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 and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it is slightly verbose (multiple sentences covering mechanism, use cases, cost). Every sentence earns its place, but could be tightened slightly while retaining 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers return values including refusal reasons. It explains the behavior, use cases, cost, and limitations. Given the complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, high schema coverage), this is comprehensive.

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 does not add significant new meaning to parameters beyond what is already in the schema, except noting that query aliases are accepted. The schema already documents each alias sufficiently.

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 function ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ask_pipeworx' by explaining the additional extraction step and refusal mechanism. It specifies the verb (answers), resource (tool results), and scope (only using fetched 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 tells when to use the tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on...must not invent facts'), when not to use it (for casual lookups, prefer ask_pipeworx), and provides a cost trade-off. This is exemplary usage 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 discloses numerous behavioral traits beyond annotations, including low-confidence resolution short-circuiting, closed market handling, wide-spread market warnings, resolution-rule risk parsing, and fan-out details. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent and enhanced by this 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 very long and detailed, with multiple sections. While structured with clear headings and examples, it is verbose. It front-loads the main purpose but then dives into extensive detail. Some conciseness is sacrificed for completeness.

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 of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains return shapes, resolver contract, parent event extraction, news fields, safety mechanisms, and error cases. Every important aspect is covered, making the tool usable without additional documentation.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the 'market' parameter can be a slug, URL, or question text, and by giving examples of how 'depth' affects behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description provides useful extra context.

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 action (research) and resource (Polymarket bet), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a one-stop research function for a specific bet, using examples like 'should I bet on X'.

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 usage scenarios: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It gives examples of different bet types and how the tool handles them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, which prevents a higher 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds crucial behavioral details: specific data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of 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 front-loaded with use cases and examples. Though relatively long, every sentence provides value—trigger phrases, data source details, sorting behavior, and citation URIs. It could be slightly more concise, but remains 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources, sorting), the description covers all relevant aspects: data sources per type, fiscal year handling, metric extraction, sorting logic, and output format (paired data + citations). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently 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% and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the 'type' enum in detail (company pulls 10-K data, drug pulls adverse events), provides concrete examples for 'values' (tickers, CIKs, drug names), and clarifies limits (2-5 items).

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 ('Compare', 'side-by-side comparison') and clearly identifies the resource (2-5 companies or drugs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'entity_profile' and explicitly states it replaces sequential lookups.

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 tells the agent to 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' when comparing entities, and provides trigger phrases like 'which is bigger' or 'rank these companies'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of comparison 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 read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel decomposition, result structure with gaps, timing of 15-60s, and that it is not open-web search. 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 well-structured and front-loaded with account requirements and fallback. Each sentence adds value, though it is somewhat lengthy. Still, it earns a 4 for clear organization and essential 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, the description explains the return format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps). It covers usage, timing, and alternatives, making it fairly complete for the tool's 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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about account and paid plan for 'thorough' depth, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 performs grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1242 structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets and returning evidence packets. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx, which is for single lookups or current news.

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 (broad/multi-part structured data questions) and when-not-to-use (single lookups, breaking news, prefer ask_pipeworx). Also covers account requirements and fallback tool if not signed in.

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, destructiveHint. Description adds that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed', which is useful behavioral context. 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 front-loaded with core purpose and usage guidance. It lists many domains which is informative but slightly verbose. Overall efficient 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 required param, no output schema), the description fully explains output (list of tools with schemas) and when to call. Complete and self-contained.

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 repeats aliases and provides examples, but adds little beyond what the schema already offers. No significant additional parameter 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: 'Find tools by describing the data or task'. It lists specific domains and explains that it returns top-N relevant tools with full schemas, distinguishing it from siblings like lookup or fetch_schema.

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: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' It implies when not to use (if you already know the tool), providing clear contextual 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), it details fanned-out sources, return structure, and warns of patents API sunset soft-fail.

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?

Though moderately long, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with examples and structured into behavior and return details. Could be slightly more concise but justified by 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?

Given no output schema, it thoroughly describes return values (filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and edge cases. Covers all needed context for an agent to use 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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains type enum is limited to 'company', value must be ticker or zero-padded CIK, and names not supported. Also describes how fundamentals are sorted.

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 like 'full cross-source profile' and provides numerous example queries. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity by stating that names are not supported.

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 instructs to prefer over chaining single-pack lookups for holistic views. Also states when not to use (names) and directs to resolve_entity first.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the domain constraint as a behavioral trait, but lacks details on error handling or edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's core function and constraint.

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, an existing output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and constraint adequately. No additional details are necessary.

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% for the url parameter, with a description giving an example. The description adds the constraint that the URL must be on json.schemastore.org, providing extra meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool fetches a JSON Schema document by URL, with a specific constraint that the URL must be hosted on json.schemastore.org. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_schema_for and list_schemas.

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 the domain constraint, providing context on when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. More guidance would improve this.

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 context about fileMatch globs but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. 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 a single, 10-word sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word is necessary; 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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists, comprehensive annotations), the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's core purpose, and the schema covers parameter details.

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 a clear description for the single parameter 'filename'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline for well-covered parameters.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'catalog entries' with a specific condition about fileMatch globs covering a filename. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'fetch_schema' and 'list_schemas' by focusing on matching files.

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 implies usage for finding schemas that apply to a given filename, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_schema' or 'discover_tools'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data, which strengthens transparency without contradicting 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 the main action, zero wasted 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 destructive tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings.

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 mentions 'by key', which aligns with the schema's key description. No additional semantics beyond what the schema 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 the tool deletes a memory by key, using a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('memory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by its delete action.

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 ('context is stale, task is done, clear sensitive data') and mentions pairing with siblings ('remember' and 'recall'), providing clear 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. 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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, followed by use cases. No wasted words, 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?

Given annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context. Explains output format and typical deployment location. No output schema needed as output is clearly described.

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. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, such as hinting at extraction process, but does not significantly enhance parameter 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 the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check by focusing on producing the specific file format. Includes specific verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt file'.

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 use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor. Does not provide when-not-to-use or 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 already fully cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds no behavioral details beyond the action, but does not contradict annotations. Lack of pagination or performance notes is acceptable given output schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part of the description adds value: the action, the resource, and the filter capability.

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 list tool with two optional parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the filter but could mention pagination implied by the limit parameter.

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 that the filter is 'case-insensitive' and applies to 'name/description/fileMatch', which goes beyond the schema's example. This extra context improves parameter 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?

The description 'List SchemaStore catalog entries' states a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like fetch_schema or find_schema_for, but the verb 'list' implies browsing vs. fetching specific entries.

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 an optional filter parameter, implying use for filtered listing, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear but not complete.

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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the return format (fields) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or performance limits. 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 purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, well 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Annotations further enhance completeness.

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 single parameter described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, meeting 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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (subscriptions), and the scope (caller's active). It also lists the specific return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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 to use it for reviewing subscriptions before adding more or to find an id to cancel. It implies not to use it for subscribing or unsubscribing, but lacks an explicit when-not statement.

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 and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by noting case-insensitivity and exact-name matching. 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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key behavior and constraints.

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 adequately covers purpose, constraints, and behavior. No additional context seems necessary.

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 parameter description is minimal ('e.g. package.json'). The function description reinforces the case-insensitive aspect, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'lookup', the resource 'catalog', and the constraints 'exact-name' and 'case-insensitive'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_within or entity_profile by specifying exact-match behavior.

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

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

The description implies use when you have an exact name to look up, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the large list of sibling tools, some guidance would improve clarity.

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 (which indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description adds rate-limiting details, that feedback is reviewed daily, that it influences the roadmap, and that it does not count against tool-call quota. This fully informs the agent of behavioral traits.

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 yet comprehensive, with all sentences adding value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral notes, then constraints. 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?

For a feedback tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, what to include, limitations (rate limit), and consequences (roadmap influence). No output schema is needed; the agent can infer success from typical API responses.

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 meaning: for 'type', it explains each enum value (bug, feature, data_gap, praise, other) with clear definitions. For 'message', it advises specificity. It also clarifies that 'context' is optional structured context. This goes beyond the schema's 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's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It further enumerates use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all analytical or informational, not feedback-oriented.

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 on when to use: for bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. Also specifies what not to do: 'don't paste the end-user's prompt' and 'describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs.' Mentions rate limits (5 per day) and that it's free, 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds self-aggregating from CF analytics, no PII, and cache duration (5min-1h), exceeding annotation scope.

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, well-structured with bullet points. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return includes top tools, top packs, total call volume. Could specify format more, but adequate for a simple aggregation tool with strong 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% with description for window parameter. Description adds context about shorter vs longer windows surfacing hot vs steady-state demand, 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 clearly states it returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. Verb 'returns' and resource 'trending data' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings as no other sibling tool explicitly returns trending 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?

Explicit use cases listed (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choice, seeing alignment). Lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear enough for the agent.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: internal checks (monotonicity violation, partition_check, fill_check), semantic anchor (Jaccard threshold), partition filter, and trade viability condition (realizable_edge_pp). 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?

Description is lengthy but well-structured with clear sections for each mode. It front-loads the core functionality and every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but content justifies 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 no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: modes, internal logic, response structure, fill check, semantic anchor, and partition filter. It also references a sibling tool for custom sizing. Highly 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%. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining event slugs, topic queries, default behavior, and gives concrete examples. It clarifies the difference between the two parameters and their use cases.

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 examples and explains the default trending_scan mode.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: no args for trending_scan, event for specific event, topic for cross-event scan. It recommends event for specific markets but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk exist.

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 extensive behavioral traits: caching at KV level keyed on all knobs, detailed explanation of three model segments, diagnostics for empty segments, and warnings. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.).

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 very long (≈500 words) and dense with technical details. While comprehensive, it could be more concise to aid agent parsing. Not front-loaded enough for quick understanding.

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 fully explains return structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, _diagnostics), caching, and filter logic. Covers all necessary aspects 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% so baseline is 3. Description adds value with examples (e.g., slippage_pp explains bid/ask costs) and clarifies filter effects. 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?

Clearly states it scans Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, specifically for 'what should I bet on today'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edge_tracker.

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 describes its use case (discovery without paging) and provides guidance on knobs like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp. Does not directly compare with siblings, but context implies 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 adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: snapshots are written on cache-miss, gaps indicate no scanning, 60-day TTL, and decay computed from daily closes. It fully aligns with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, with 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 well-structured with clear sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS) and provides essential information. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened 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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with field details. It also covers limitations like 60-day TTL and snapshot gaps, making the tool self-contained.

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 repeats the defaults and clamp values but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema. The response structure explanation is helpful but not directly related to parameter 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: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers the specific question about how long an edge has existed and whether it's shrinking, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges that only show current edges.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and contrasts fresh vs. old edges. It implicitly guides against using it for current edge data (suggesting polymarket_edges instead). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, keeping it from 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 include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral details beyond these: explains the two modes, walks the ladder, returns verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warns about thin books and partial fills. 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 relatively long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then REQUIRES, then explains modes, then returns, then usage recommendation. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description covers return fields in detail, usage conditions, failure modes, and warnings. It explains the difference between single-market and basket modes thoroughly, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description adds context on how size_usd is interpreted in basket mode (settlement notional) and explains the returned fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.) which are not in the schema. This adds significant 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 it checks 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth' and delineates two modes (single-market and basket). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use it (e.g., before acting on arbitrage signals or edges above $500).

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 THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It provides a threshold and warns against partial basket fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position, which is the dominant loss mode.

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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds crucial behavioral context: it explains when spreads are meaningful (equivalent bet shapes), exposes counters for skipped comparisons, and warns about temporal misalignment.

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 comprehensive but verbose; it includes detailed explanations that could be shortened. However, it is well-structured with sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 sufficiently explains the response format and safety fields. It covers temporal alignment, skipped counters, and compatibility warnings, making it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the topic shortcut list and how explicit parameters override mapped values. It provides examples and clarifies the relationship between parameters.

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: computing cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode (topic vs explicit), warns that pre-mapped topics are not necessarily tradeable, and explains safety fields like compatibility_warning and temporal_alignment.

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. Description adds valuable context: retrieval from memory, scoping to identifier, and pairing with remember/forget. 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, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds essential information: retrieval function, use case, scoping, and pairing. 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?

Given the simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers behavior, usage, scoping, and relationship to sibling tools. 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% for the single optional 'key' parameter, with description already in schema. The description adds the clarity of listing all keys when omitted, which matches the schema's description. Adds value beyond schema by explaining the dual behavior.

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 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument).' This uses specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'value' or 'keys', and distinguishes from siblings 'remember' 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?

Description gives explicit use case: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' It also mentions scoping and notes the dual behavior with key omission. While no explicit when-not-to-use, the guidance is clear and context-rich.

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 contradicts the annotations by mentioning that setting 'mark_read:true' flags events as read, which is a mutation. The annotations declare 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'idempotentHint: true', implying no state change. This contradiction leads to a score of 1 per the evaluation criteria.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, event structure, filtering and mark_read behavior, and polling/alternative endpoint. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary context. It explains what each event carries, how filtering works, the effect of mark_read, and even provides an alternative REST endpoint. This is complete 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains that 'type' filters to a subscription type like 'sec_8k', that 'since' expects an ISO timestamp, and that 'mark_read:true' marks events as read in the same call. This enriches the semantic understanding of the parameters.

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 pulls fired events from the subscription feed, specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recent_changes' by focusing on alerts from subscriptions. It also details the event structure (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and filtering options, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 context on when to use the tool (pulling alerts from subscription feed) and mentions an alternative access method (REST endpoint), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over sibling tools like 'list_subscriptions' or 'recent_changes'. The explanation of filtering and mark_read behavior offers implicit usage context.

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 (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses multi-source fan-out, fallback logic, soft-fail for USPTO, and the return structure (changes grouped by source).

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence contributes meaning. It front-loads purpose and usage examples, though a bulleted list could improve scannability.

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 description covers output structure, source behaviors, and tool alternatives. Minor omissions include result limits and pagination, but overall it is thorough for a tool without an 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?

All three parameters are detailed in the schema with full coverage. The description adds valuable examples (ISO date formats, relative shorthand, ticker/CIK formats) and constraints (only 'company' supported).

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 change feed for a company within a specified window, using multiple sources. It includes explicit verb phrases and distinguishes from the sibling '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 provides explicit usage patterns (e.g., 'what's new with X') and explicitly advises when to use 'entity_profile' instead, along with fallback behavior 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 (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are complemented by the description detailing storage as key-value pairs scoped by identifier and persistence behavior (persistent for authenticated, 24h for anonymous). 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 a compact paragraph of 5 sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct information 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?

For a simple write tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the use case, persistence, key-value pairing, and navigation hints. It is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context by illustrating typical key patterns (e.g., 'subject_property') and value types, enhancing meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' with specific examples like resolved tickers or user preferences. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning pairing with '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?

The description explicitly advises when to use the tool ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and mentions scoping and persistence differences between authenticated and anonymous sessions. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is otherwise 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, and non-destructive. The description adds that each call cascades through several internal endpoints, which is useful behavioral context 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that packs in examples, usage guidance, and return details. It is concise but slightly dense; breaking it into bullet points or separate sections could improve scannability while maintaining 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers what each type returns (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, citation URIs) and mentions internal cascading. For a 2-param tool, this is thorough, though a note about error handling or disambiguation edge cases would elevate it further.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant value: for the 'type' parameter it explains the supported types and their return structures, and for 'value' it provides examples and accepted formats. This goes well beyond the schema's brief 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 resolves names to official identifiers, provides multiple query examples, and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the first tool to use when needing an ID. It specifies supported entity types and what each returns.

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,' which provides clear context. It also gives example queries. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or name sibling alternatives like 'entity_profile' or 'lookup'.

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 reveals that the tool probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score/confidence/signal density. It also explains optional model usage with API key requirements. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.).

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 (3 sentences), starts with the core purpose, then explains the mechanism, then provides a concrete use case. No unnecessary words 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?

The description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density), input constraints (2-8 entities, optional models, API key requirement), and the context parameter's use. While no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add significant new semantic detail beyond restating the parameter purposes. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, uses ai_visibility_check internally, and ranks results by score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single probe) and compare_entities (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?

The description provides a clear use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and implies that for comparing multiple entities, this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like ai_visibility_check.

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 significant context beyond annotations: describes the composite nature, partial failure with graceful degradation (sources_failed list), and timing caveat (first measurement on new version can take 5-30s). 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?

Concise yet comprehensive: 4 sentences that front-load purpose, then usage, then details and limitations. 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 the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers return values (summary block, advisories, links, alternative versions), partial failure behavior, ecosystem scope, and timing. It is complete for an AI agent to understand 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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description adds minor value by noting scoped packages are accepted and that version defaults to latest, which is not explicitly in the schema 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's a composite check for deciding to add an npm package, detailing the specific sources and checks (license, advisories, bundle size, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on other domains like AI visibility or polymarket.

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, or cost of an npm package. Also specifies it's NPM-only in v1 and directs to deps.dev for other ecosystems, providing clear 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description adds technical details: 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows', 'cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged)', and that passages have character offsets. 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?

Concise with front-loaded purpose; three to four sentences each adding value. Could be slightly tighter but overall 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?

Complete for a 3-parameter tool with annotations: explains algorithm, limits, output features (offsets, similarity scores), and pairing with another tool. 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples for query and context for passing text, but these are minor improvements over the schema 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 does 'semantic search INSIDE a fetched record', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded and is for when the record is too large for the prompt.

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: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt'. It also gives an alternative workflow by pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing clear context for usage.

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 behavioral traits beyond annotations: returns new subscription id, requires OAuth account, lists type-specific options, delivery channel details including SMS cap (10/day), webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, and that webhook secret is returned once. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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 comprehensive but slightly lengthy. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides detailed examples. Every sentence adds value, but the density of information could be slightly overwhelming. Still, it remains structured and easy to follow.

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 of the tool (multiple types, delivery channels, prerequisites, limitations), the description covers all essential aspects. It mentions requirements (OAuth account, phone verification), constraints (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable), and the return value (subscription id). No output schema is needed as the return is simple.

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 value by providing concrete examples for each subscription type (e.g., sec_8k with items codes, polymarket_edge with topic and min_spread_bps). It also clarifies which parameters are required vs optional (e.g., sponsor or condition required for clinical_trial). Delivery channel descriptions include additional behavioral context like signing and auto-disable.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'proactive monitoring subscription'. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts by focusing on subscription creation. The return value (subscription id) is also mentioned.

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 on when to use (live monitoring) and prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account, anonymous/BYO cannot persist). Lists supported subscription types with detailed parameter examples for each, helping the agent choose the correct type. Also mentions delivery channel specifics including limitations and requirements.

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, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are 'drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools' and can be filtered by topic, which provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with trigger phrases and moving to purpose and usage. Each sentence earns its place, though some verbosity could be trimmed. Front-loaded effectively.

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 schema (1 optional param, no output schema) and the tool's onboarding purpose, the description adequately explains input and output. It doesn't discuss performance or caching, but these are not critical for this tool's function.

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 description listing possible topic values. The description adds usage nuance: 'Call with no arguments for the full spread' and 'pass `topic` to focus', plus examples of valid topics. This adds meaning beyond the schema's enum-like 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 returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes, serving as an onboarding entry point. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' by explicitly saying 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you'.

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 tells when to use this tool ('when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do') and how to invoke it (no args vs topic). It also mentions alternatives ('learn how to call the meta-tools') and provides example trigger phrases ('What can I ask Pipeworx?', 'give me ideas').

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 adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the row is deactivated not deleted, ensuring historical events remain available. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint 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, no fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides valuable 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 tool with one parameter and annotations present, the description covers the effect, ownership, and side effects (deactivation). 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description. The description adds context by noting the id is a UUID returned by subscribe, which aids understanding but is not strictly necessary.

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 cancels a subscription by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'subscribe' by specifying the action and adding ownership enforcement.

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 ownership enforcement (you can only cancel your own subscriptions), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not directly compare with alternatives like 'list_subscriptions' or 'subscribe'.

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 (read-only, idempotent, etc.), the description details the return structure (verdicts, structured form, actual value, citation, delta) and explains that it consolidates multiple steps. This provides rich behavioral context with 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 front-loaded with purpose, uses clear examples, and is structured logically. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing essential details.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers input, output, scope, and even performance benefits (replaces multiple calls). It is highly complete and leaves little ambiguity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the single 'claim' parameter with examples. The description adds no critical extra information about the parameter itself, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 uses explicit query examples and specifies the domain (company-financial claims for public US companies). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces multiple sequential 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?

The description gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to check the factual correctness of a user's statement, especially for financial claims. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is well-defined.

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