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 discloses ownership enforcement and the soft-delete behavior (row deactivated, not deleted) and its relationship to recent_alerts. These are significant behavioral details not present in the annotations, which already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness. No contradiction exists.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, a key constraint, and the effect on data. There is no wasted verbiage or 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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership limitation, and the impact on historical data. It does not mention return values or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema and the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete 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?
The input schema already provides a full description of the id parameter (subscription id returned by subscribe), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'by id', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('subscription by id'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It immediately states the core action and target, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 for when to use the tool (to cancel a subscription) and an important constraint (ownership enforcement). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the contrast with subscribe and list_subscriptions is implicitly clear.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in data querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, etc.) and prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). Detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but the number of similar-sounding tools increases the chance of misselection.
Tool names show mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (e.g., find_user, list_subscriptions), others are noun_verb (e.g., entity_profile, bet_research), and there are prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. While subgroups are internally consistent, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.
With 34 tools spanning speedrun.com queries, Pipeworx data access, memory management, subscriptions, and prediction markets, the server bundles multiple domains. The scope is too broad for a coherent single server; splitting into separate servers would improve usability.
Within each domain (speedrun.com, Pipeworx, Polymarket), the tool set covers key operations comprehensively, including research, arbitrage, fill risk, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to place bets), but the overall surface is well-covered for the advertised functionalities.