read_feedRead a curated science & space feed by its id (from list_feeds). Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary). Optionally filter items by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Curated feed id (from list_feeds). | |
| limit | No | Max items (1-50, default 20). | |
| query | No | Keyword filter over item title/summary. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by specifying the return structure (normalized items) and optional filtering. 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?
Two sentences deliver all necessary information: purpose, prerequisite, output format, and optional filtering. No redundant words, and the key information is 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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and parameter schema, the description provides sufficient context: how to get the feed ID, what the tool returns, and filtering capability. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return format.
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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds limited extra meaning, only contextualizing the feed ID source ('from list_feeds'). Since the schema already documents parameters well, the description earns a 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 action ('Read'), the resource ('a curated science & space feed by its id'), and the output ('Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_feeds' and 'fetch_feed' by emphasizing curation and the need for an ID from list_feeds.
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 context by linking to 'list_feeds' for obtaining the feed ID, and mentions optional keyword filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'fetch_feed' for non-curated feeds) or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical in behavior), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, and the six-tool Polymarket cluster (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research) requires careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but several tools present real selection ambiguity.
Nearly all tools use snake_case with a mostly verb-first or resource-first pattern (ask_, list_, fetch_, read_, subscribe, validate_claim). Minor deviations like entity_profile and recent_changes break the verb-noun pattern slightly, but the overall naming is predictable.
34 tools is excessive for the 'Science Feeds' name, which implies a narrow feed-reading service; only 3 tools actually relate to feeds. The rest form a broad Pipeworx grab bag (memory, npm scanning, AI visibility, prediction markets, feedback), making the set feel unfocused and overweight.
For the broad query/research domain the descriptions actually establish, coverage is strong: discovery, single lookups, grounded/refusal-safe answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, change feeds, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. The literal science-feed surface is thin, but the toolkit as a whole has few dead ends.