unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing ownership enforcement (auth requirement) and explaining that the row is deactivated rather than deleted, with historical events remaining available via recent_alerts. This adds meaningful context that is not present in the annotations, which only indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second explains side effects and ownership. There is no redundant or extraneous 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 cancel operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, ownership constraint, deactivation behavior, and interaction with recent_alerts. It is missing only a mention of the return value, but given the idempotentHint annotation and simplicity, this is a minor gap.
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 provides 100% coverage by describing the id as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool cancels a subscription by id, using a specific verb and resource. It also includes ownership enforcement, which distinguishes it from generic subscription management tools and clarifies its scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to cancel a subscription you own) and implicitly excludes canceling others' subscriptions via the ownership enforcement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the ownership constraint, so it falls short of a 5.
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.