forgetDelete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds the context that this clears sensitive data and operates on previously stored memories, but does not reveal additional operational behaviors beyond what annotations and schema convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with practical usage context included in the second sentence. 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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and its relationship to memory-related siblings; annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'key' parameter ('Memory key to delete'); the description only echoes 'by key' and 'previously stored memory', adding no new technical detail.
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 states the exact action ('Delete'), the target resource ('a previously stored memory'), and the mechanism ('by key'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like remember and recall which store and retrieve memories respectively.
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 provides when-to-use criteria: stale context, task completion, clearing sensitive data. Also suggests pairing with remember and recall, guiding appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among similarly named tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could cause misselection. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.
Tool names follow a mix of patterns (verb_noun, noun_noun, etc.) and use different prefixes (polymarket_, sec_8k_, pipeworx_), which is somewhat inconsistent but still readable and descriptive overall.
34 tools is on the higher side, with several tools dedicated to specific subdomains (e.g., 6 Polymarket-related, 4 SEC 8-K tools). While each has a distinct role, the number feels slightly bloated for a single server.
The tool surface covers a broad range of data research and monitoring tasks, including filings, entity profiles, claims, and prediction markets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no data writing tools), but core workflows are well-supported.