fetch_feedFetch and normalize any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL. CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway. Use list_feeds first for curated sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Feed URL, e.g. "https://news.ycombinator.com/rss". | |
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'CF-robust: fetches directly and falls back to a proxy if the source blocks the gateway.' This discloses network resilience behavior that an agent should know, as it may affect latency or success. The term 'normalize' also hints at output standardization beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word is purposeful. It includes essential info (fetch, normalize, proxy fallback, and usage tip) 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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function, network behavior, and usage guidance. It could explicitly mention return format (e.g., normalized feed items) but the term 'normalize' implies standardized output. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, it is adequately 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (url, limit, query) clearly described in the schema. The description does not add extra semantics for parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 and resource: 'Fetch and normalize any RSS / Atom / RDF feed by URL.' This clearly states the tool's action and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by implying it works for arbitrary URLs while 'Use list_feeds first for curated sources' differentiates it 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 explicitly tells the agent to use list_feeds first for curated sources, which clarifies when not to use this tool. It provides clear context for when to use fetch_feed (any URL, not curated), though it does not mention alternative tools like read_feed. This is strong guidance but not fully exhaustive.
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.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differ only in mode, and the polymarket_* cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market analysis with fuzzy boundaries. The presence of ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence, plus discover_tools and suggest_questions, adds further ambiguity about which tool to select first.
Names are all snake_case but follow mixed conventions: verb_noun (list_feeds, read_feed, fetch_feed, validate_claim) coexists with noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges) and prefix-grouped names (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*). While subgroups are internally consistent, the overall set lacks a unified pattern, though it remains readable.
34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for too many, and the count is especially inappropriate for a server named 'Sports Feeds' — most tools are generic data-research or meta-tools (subscriptions, memory, feedback, discovery) unrelated to sports feeds. The bloat suggests the server is actually a broad Pipeworx gateway, not a focused sports feeder.
For a sports-feeds server, only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed address the core domain, and there is no feed search, categorization beyond a simple list, or sports-specific analytics. While the general research surface (SEC, FDA, economics, prediction markets) is fairly comprehensive, it is misaligned with the stated server purpose, leaving the actual sports-feed functionality thin and with obvious gaps.