read_feedRead a curated sports feed by its id (from list_feeds). Returns normalized items (title, link, published, summary). Optionally filter items by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Curated feed id (from list_feeds). | |
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact output fields (title, link, published, summary) and the optional keyword filtering behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.
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 action ('Read a curated sports feed by its id'), and every sentence adds value—covering input source, output format, and optional filtering. There is no waste 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 read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (normalized items with specified fields) and the optional filter. It complements the schema's parameter details and the annotations' safety profile, providing a complete picture for an agent to invoke it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents feed, limit, and query. The description's mention of 'keyword filter over item title/summary' aligns with the query parameter description but adds no new semantic detail. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 reads a curated sports feed by its id, specifies the source of ids (list_feeds), and distinguishes the output (normalized items with specific fields). This differentiates it from sibling tools like fetch_feed by emphasizing 'curated' and the normalized format.
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 implies usage context: obtain id from list_feeds, optionally filter by keyword, and returns a normalized feed. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. The reference to list_feeds is a practical prerequisite.
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.