list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it scopes results to the caller, defaults to active subscriptions only, and lists the exact return fields, which is more than the annotations alone provide.
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 three short sentences: the first states the action, the second lists return fields, and the third gives usage context. Every sentence adds value and the most important 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states scope, return fields, and typical use cases. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field list.
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 single parameter (include_inactive) is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description only reinforces the default behavior ('active subscriptions') without adding new parameter-level details, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the caller's active subscriptions'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 when to use this tool: to review active monitoring before adding more subscriptions or to find an ID to cancel. It implies the alternatives (subscribe/unsubscribe) but does not name them directly, leaving a small gap in explicit contrast.
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.