Statbel Be

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark as read-only, idempotent, etc. The description adds value by explaining the default model, BYO key requirement for Anthropic, and the structure of the return value (per-model + combined view). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences packed with essential info: action, default, optional key, return format, and use cases. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately outlines return structure (per-model + combined). Annotations cover safety. All parameters, use cases, and behavioral notes are provided. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description enriches understanding (e.g., 'default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free)', '_apiKey passed straight through to api.anthropic.com'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('probe and score') and resource ('LLMs'), and clearly identifies the entity type (business/brand/product/topic). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on AI visibility scoring, which is distinct from other tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' that target specific competitors.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and explains when to use optional parameters (e.g., '_apiKey' for Anthropic). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear enough for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool routes to many tools and returns structured answers with citation URIs, providing useful behavioral context 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 well-structured with a key instruction at the start, followed by explanation and usage guidelines. While somewhat long, every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded effectively.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers return format (structured answer with citations), use cases, and guidance for alternatives. It is comprehensive for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples of proper question formation and aliases, helping agents understand parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: answering factual questions using structured data from many sources. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, making the purpose very clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (prefer over web search, entry point for factual questions) and when not to (use ask_pipeworx_grounded for single answers with evidence, deep_research for broad multi-part). It includes examples of appropriate queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), it discloses extra LLM cost, refusal reasons, and return structure with evidence. No contradiction with 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?

Single paragraph that is well-structured with purpose first, then behavior, then usage. Efficient but slightly dense; borderline 5 but not perfectly scannable.

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?

Covers all aspects: purpose, behavior (refusal modes, evidence extraction), usage context, and return format despite no output schema. Complete for a high-stakes tool.

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%, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 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 it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and distinguishes it from sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by explaining the extraction-only behavior.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' with examples (financial, legal, medical) and advises preferring ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent and the description adds extensive behavioral detail: fan-out logic, classifiers, resolver contract with confidence scoring, parent_event extraction, news fallback, safety checks for low-confidence, wide spreads, cancellation rule parsing. No contradictions.

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?

Description is very detailed and front-loaded with core purpose, but becomes verbose with extensive examples and edge-case explanations. While comprehensive, the length may hinder quick parsing. Could be trimmed without losing critical 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?

Given 3 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description fully covers output structure, error states, blocking conditions, and edge cases. It leaves no gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand the tool's behavior or results.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains 'depth' behavior (quick vs thorough), market input flexibility, and include_raw impact on response size. This aids correct parameter selection.

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 verb ('Research'), the resource ('Polymarket bet'), and the action ('pulling relevant Pipeworx data in one call'). It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet + comparison). Examples and classifiers further delineate scope, and it is distinguishable from siblings like ask_pipeworx and polymarket_edges by focusing on single bet research.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use for should I bet on X, what does the data say about Y, or is there edge in Z'. Details blocking states (low_confidence_match, market_closed_or_inactive) and tradeability warnings, guiding when results should not be trusted. However, does not explicitly exclude use cases that belong to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations, describes handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and output with citation URIs. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with trigger phrases and purpose. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Covers types, data sources, sorting, and output mention. Given no output schema, return format is hinted but not fully specified. Completeness adequate for comparison tool.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description enriches with examples and behavior (e.g., tickers vs drug names), but doesn't detail output structure beyond URIs.

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?

Description explicitly lists trigger phrases like 'Compare X and Y', specifies resource types (companies/drugs), data sources (SEC EDGAR, FAERS), and distinguishes from sequential lookups. Clear verb+resource.

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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and mentions it replaces 8-15 lookups. Provides clear when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), description adds account requirement, paid plan for thorough depth, expected wait time (15-60s), output format with gaps[], and that it doesn't do open-web search. No contradiction with 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 lengthy but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with critical info (account requirement and alternative). Could be slightly tighter but well structured and informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema, rich annotations, many siblings), the description is comprehensive: covers purpose, usage guidance, behavior, prerequisites, output, and when to use alternatives. Adequate for correct agent invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters (question and depth). Description adds meaning: explains depth enum levels with the number of facets (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8), and that question is natural language and multi-part is acceptable. This enriches the schema.

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 states 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1160 STRUCTURED data sources' and explains it decomposes questions and routes to tools in parallel. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx, which is for single lookups or breaking news.

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?

Explicitly says 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and provides clear when-not-to-use: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS topics, prefer ask_pipeworx'. Also names alternative tools directly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. However, it adds value by explaining that results include full input schemas and are ready to call directly, providing useful behavioral context 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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. The list of domains makes it slightly longer than necessary, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but still well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains what it does, when to use it, and what results contain. It even addresses the lack of output schema by describing the return format (names, descriptions, schemas). No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'query' accepts natural language and lists aliases. It also notes the limit parameter to control result count. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb-noun pair 'find tools by describing the data or task' and lists many specific domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.), making its purpose highly specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only tool for discovering other tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and advises to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available'. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for discovery.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fans out across multiple sources, returns specific data (cik, filings, fundamentals, patents with soft-fail notice, news via fallback, LEI). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 detailed but somewhat verbose, listing all return fields inline. It is well-structured with front-loaded examples, but could be more concise. Adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns, including specific fields, sources, fallbacks, and limitations (patents soft-fail, name unsupported). This fully equips an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates that 'value' must be ticker or CIK and that names are not supported, which adds marginal value. Baseline 3 applies as schema already provides adequate semantics.

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's purpose: generating a full cross-source profile of a US public company. It starts with example queries ('Tell me about X') and explicitly contrasts with chaining single-source lookups, distinguishing it from siblings like compare_entities and resolve_entity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('ALWAYS PREFER over chaining... for holistic view'), when not to use ('names not supported'), and directs to a sibling tool ('use resolve_entity first if you only have a name').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about use cases (clearing sensitive data) and aligns with the destructive nature. No contradiction.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states action, second gives usage guidance. No waste, front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

Simple tool with one required parameter. Description covers purpose, usage context, and pairing with siblings. No output schema needed. Fully 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description mentions 'by key' but adds no extra detail beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete'. Adequate but not enhanced.

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 action ('Delete a previously stored memory by key') and the resource ('memory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by implying the deletion counterpart.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('when context is stale, task is done, or clear sensitive data') and pairs with alternatives ('Pair with remember and recall').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool fetches the page and extracts title/description/key links, which aligns with annotations and provides additional behavioral context without contradiction.

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 compact but informative: two sentences explaining the process and a bullet list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds value with no 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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers output format (standard llms.txt markdown, ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt). With only two simple parameters and no nested objects, the description is complete and leaves no gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-described in the schema. The description restates the URL parameter briefly and mentions max_links default (25) and max (50), which are already in the schema. No new semantic information is added beyond the schema.

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 action (generate) and the resource (llms.txt file for any URL). It explains the process (fetch, extract, emit) and distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on producing a specific file 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 explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting llms.txt for own project, or auditing competitor's AI crawler view. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds detail about return fields but no behavioral traits 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, compact, and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all key return fields (name, descriptions map, locales, category, update dates), fully contextualizing the tool's output for a simple query. No additional context is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The description adds a usage hint (e.g., from a view) but does not significantly expand on the schema's own example.

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 retrieves multilingual metadata for a dataset by UUID, listing specific fields returned. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_view' and 'list_datasets' by focusing on a single dataset's metadata, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 by mentioning the ID comes from a view's dataSourceId, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_view' or 'list_datasets'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral specifics: the exact fields returned (name, locale, dataSourceId, dates) and that it returns a view object. No contradictions or omissions.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, listing outputs, and providing a next step. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant text.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the returned data. The simplicity of the tool and rich annotations make this description sufficient.

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 'id' is well-documented in the schema with an example. The description adds context by specifying that the id comes from list_views, enhancing understanding beyond the schema coverage (100%).

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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving metadata for a Statbel view by its UUID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dataset and list_views by referencing the id source and the follow-up action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a view UUID from list_views) and what not to use it for (not for dataset descriptions, which is covered by get_dataset). However, it does not explicitly exclude other contexts, so a 4 is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds details about returned structure (descriptions map, timestamps) and filtering behavior, compensating for missing output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no redundant phrases.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return structure and filtering logic thoroughly. Annotations handle safety. Complete for a listing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The filtering behavior is already described in the schema, but the description provides context on dataset structure.

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 browses/searches Statbel datasets and lists the key fields (name code, descriptions map, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dataset.

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?

Implies usage for listing/searching datasets with optional filtering, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when to avoid using.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds context beyond annotations: default active-only behavior, caller scoping, and specific return fields. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, ends with usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Covers return values explicitly, default behavior, and usage context. No output schema, but description compensates. Could mention response format but sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter. Description adds no further parameter details, so baseline 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?

Clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies return fields. Distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: to review monitoring before adding more or find an id to cancel. Implicitly excludes other uses.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by explaining what constitutes a view (pre-built table with single locale) and that filtering matches in any language, without contradicting 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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second explains filtering. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 read-only listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what information it returns, and how to filter, meeting all contextual needs.

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 coverage is 100% so description adds limited parameter detail beyond the schema; it reinforces the case-insensitive substring and locale filtering but does not introduce new semantics.

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 browses/searches Statbel statistical views, specifies returned fields (id, name, locale, dataSourceId, publish dates), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_view (singular) and list_datasets.

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?

Provides clear guidance on filtering by case-insensitive substring and optional locale, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about rate limits (5 per identifier per day) and that it doesn't count against quota. No contradiction. It could add more about the team's response, but sufficient.

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 concise (three sentences) with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, quickly moves to usage guidance, and ends with behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, few parameters), the description covers all important aspects: purpose, usage, rate limits, and parameter hints. It could mention what happens after sending (e.g., no confirmation), but it's not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by explaining the enums for 'type' beyond their labels and giving formatting guidance for 'message' (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max). This goes beyond the schema.

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's purpose: sending feedback to the Pipeworx team. It specifies the types of feedback (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and the action ('Tell'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by its unique feedback function.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios (wrong data, missing tool, praise) and guidance on message content (describe in terms of tools/packs; don't paste user prompt). It also mentions rate limits and that it's free. It could improve by stating when not to use, but given the clear use cases, it's effective.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable details: data source (CF analytics-engine), privacy (no PII), and caching behavior (5min-1h). No contradictions.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with main purpose, then use cases, then technical details. Every sentence adds information without fluff.

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?

Covers return format, data source, caching, and use cases. Despite no output schema, description provides sufficient context for a simple read tool with one optional parameter.

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 covers parameter fully with enum and description. Description further explains that shorter windows surface hot trends and longer windows show steady-state demand, adding value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it returns trending data (top tools, packs, call volume) aggregated from other agents. Differentiates from siblings like 'discover_tools' by focusing on current agent usage.

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?

Lists three specific use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool, seeing alignment). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the examples are helpful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description extensively discloses internal behaviors: Jaccard similarity threshold (≥0.30), partition filter (placeholder slugs, >20% placeholder fraction null signal), fill check pricing against live CLOB depth with actionable guidance. All disclosed behaviors are consistent with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint 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 comprehensive yet efficient, with every sentence providing necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured to progressively elaborate on modes, internal checks, and return structure. Despite its length, there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is fully complete: it covers all invocation modes, parameter guidance, return structure (opportunities and partition_check fields), internal logic (semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check), and cross-references to polymarket_fill_risk. No gaps are present for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value beyond parameter descriptions: it explains the difference between event and topic modes, provides example values, clarifies the default no-args behavior, and details the internal use of parameters. This surpasses the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes three invocation modes (no args, event, topic) and explains the scope of each, effectively differentiating from sibling tools by referencing polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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 explicit usage instructions: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan', 'event (recommended for a specific market)', 'topic (for cross-event scanning)'. It explains the rationale for choosing modes, warns against trading when the edge is only theoretical via fill_check, and redirects sizing to polymarket_fill_risk.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral context: output structure with three segments, model details (e.g., lognormal barrier, Kelly fractions), edge parameters (edge_pp_net after slippage, max Kelly 0.25), 24h-move warning, diagnostic info, and caching. No contradiction with 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 very lengthy (6 dense paragraphs) and includes excessive detail such as specific α values for each sport and model internals. While it is front-loaded with the purpose, the verbosity may hinder quick comprehension for an AI agent. Every sentence does not earn its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure: by_segment segments, fed_candidates, _diagnostics, and per-opportunity fields. It also covers caching and edge calculation details. This provides complete context for an agent to understand inputs and outputs without needing an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., min_kelly includes examples). The main description adds overarching context by explaining these knobs as 'tradeable-edge filters' and their role in filtering non-realizable edges. This adds moderate value beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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's purpose: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price.' It is built for 'what should I bet on today' and distinguishes itself by focusing on edge detection without paging hundreds of markets, setting it apart from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage.

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 context for use (discovering opportunities without paging) and mentions tradeable-edge knobs, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to alternatives. Usage is implied but exclusions are missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes), though it could note data resolution is daily not intraday.

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 well-structured with bold key terms separating purpose, args, response, and limits. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; front-loaded with purpose makes it efficient for scanning.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and their subfields, plus limitations. For a data retrieval tool with two optional parameters, this provides comprehensive context 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds context: defaults, clamps, and the meaning of window as a snapshot family. This goes beyond the schema by explaining how parameters affect output, e.g., the response includes snapshot_dates and time-series.

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 it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering how long an edge has existed and whether it is shrinking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on temporal analysis rather than current edge values.

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 explains the tool answers specific questions about edge longevity and gives context (e.g., fresh versus old wide edges). However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where a user should use sibling tools instead, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it explains that the tool 'walks the ladder', why partial basket fills are dangerous ('convert an arb into an unhedged directional position'), and specifies return fields like 'forced_directional_risk'. This adds value without contradicting 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 moderately dense but well-structured: bold for 'REQUIRES', clear separation of single-market and basket modes, bullet-like listing of return fields. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining some clauses). Overall it's front-loaded and organized.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates all returned fields for both modes (e.g., 'top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, and a verdict' for single-market; 'theoretical_sum vs realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs[], max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk' for basket). It also covers edge cases (thin legs, directional risk). This is complete for the complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra meaning: it distinguishes when to use `market` vs `event` (single-market vs basket), explains the default for `side` in both modes (including auto-detection for basket), and interprets `size_usd` differently for single-market (spend/target proceeds) vs basket (settlement notional, shares per leg). This goes far beyond the schema.

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 it performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth'. It explicitly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, providing specific verbs and resource contexts (e.g., 'walks the ladder', 'returns top_of_book'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It provides clear when-to-use guidance and explains the risk of not using it (theoretical overround on thin books not capturable, partial basket fills converting arb into unhedged positions). This is explicit and practical.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it details safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment), explains when leg comparisons are skipped (cross-type/subtype mismatches), and clarifies that real tradeable spreads are rare. No contradictions with annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive).

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 front-loaded with purpose, then systematically explains modes, response, and safety fields. It is somewhat lengthy but well-structured, with minimal redundancy. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three optional parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers response format, compatibility scenarios, temporal alignment, skipped counters, and edge cases. The agent has all information needed to interpret results and avoid misuse.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the topic parameter's pre-mapped shortcuts, that explicit tickers override mapped ones, and provides examples. It enhances understanding but the schema already does a good job.

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's purpose: 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question.' It specifies two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

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 explains when to use the tool (for cross-venue spread) and provides two operational modes. It includes explicit warnings that most pre-mapped topics yield compatibility warnings and advises using explicit tickers for custom pairings. It also describes conditions when spreads are meaningless, guiding appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds scoping to an identifier and behavior when key is omitted, without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, each purposeful. First sentence defines core function; second adds usage context and scoping. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description covers behavior, scoping, and use cases adequately, especially with rich annotations present.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds context with examples of key values (ticker, address, notes) and reiterates the omission behavior, adding meaning beyond schema.

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 action ('Retrieve a value' or 'list all saved keys') and the resource ('saved via remember'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming 'remember' and 'forget'.

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?

Provides specific use cases like retrieving the user's target ticker, address, or research notes. Implicitly contrasts with remember and forget, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states that setting mark_read:true flags events as read, which modifies state. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint:true, indicating the tool is read-only. This is a clear contradiction. Despite annotations also noting idempotentHint:true and destructiveHint:false, the contradiction undermines trust.

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 focused sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then details fields and important behavioral notes, and ends with a practical alternative. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

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?

The description covers output fields, filtering options, side effects, and an alternative polling method. With 5 parameters and no output schema, it provides sufficient context. However, it does not mention error handling or rate limits, which would be helpful given the polling use case. The contradiction slightly reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example filter ('sec_8k') and explaining the effect of mark_read on subsequent calls, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' with a specific verb and resource. It lists key fields (source, citation_uri, raw event payload) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and subscribe, which handle subscription management rather than retrieving alert events.

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 explains filtering by type and since, and mentions that polling works fine. It also provides an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses multi-source fan-out, fallback between GDELT and GNews, soft-fail for USPTO patent API, and return structure. No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured: starts with example queries, then explains sources, parameters, and return format. Every sentence adds value 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?

Even without output schema, the description sufficiently covers behavior, parameters, and return structure. Complex tool is well-explained.

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?

Adds valuable context beyond schema: acceptable formats for since (ISO date or relative shorthand like '7d'), ticker vs CIK for value, and that type only supports company.

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 provides a change feed for a company, listing specific sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, USPTO) and differentiating from sibling tool entity_profile.

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?

Explicitly gives example queries and when to use this tool, and advises using entity_profile for static profiles. Also notes fallback behavior and API limitations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing scoping by identifier and memory persistence (24 hours for anonymous, persistent for authenticated users). No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral context, and pairing with other tools. It is 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for key and value. The description provides example values but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 saves data for reuse across sessions, with specific examples like 'resolved ticker, target address, user preference'. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'recall' and 'forget' by mentioning they pair together.

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 explains when to use the tool ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and recommends pairing with recall and forget. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is clear enough for context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context that each call cascades through several internal endpoints, replacing 2-3 manual lookups, which helps agents understand the tool's internal behavior.

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 front-loaded with example queries and structured with bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. It remains efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values for both supported types, including citation URIs. It also covers all input variations, making it contextually complete for a resolution tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description goes far beyond by explaining return values for each type (e.g., company returns ticker + CIK + name + citation URI) and input variants (ticker, CIK, or name; brand or generic name). This adds significant meaning.

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 resolves a user-spoken name to a canonical identifier, with specific verb 'resolve' and resource 'name to ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like compare_entities and entity_profile by focusing on ID lookups.

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?

Explicitly tells agents to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing clear context. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the guidance is strong and includes that it replaces multiple manual lookups.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it internally calls ai_visibility_check multiple times and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, signal density, which is valuable behavioral context 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 three sentences, each earning its place: function, process, use-case/output. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given complexity (composite tool, no output schema), the description covers process, input behavior, output format, and usage context. Explains return structure (ranked list with metrics) and entity role, making it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: first entity is treated as subject, context is applied to every probe, and provides examples (e.g., 'B2B SaaS'). This enriches the schema.

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 it compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, probes each with ai_visibility_check, and ranks them. It distinguishes itself from sibling ai_visibility_check by being a multi-entity composite tool. The example query enhances clarity.

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?

Description provides context for use (competitive AI-marketing audits) and notes first entry as subject. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like using ai_visibility_check individually.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds critical behavioral details: the tool fans out to two external sources, partial failures degrade gracefully, and bundlephobia's first measurement on a new version can take 5-30s with a sources_failed field if it times out. This goes beyond what annotations 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 relatively long but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and then providing necessary details about behavior, limitations, and return values. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined. Still, it earns a 4 for clarity without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (composite, two data sources, potential delays), the description is comprehensive. It explains the return values (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions), ecosystem limitation, and graceful degradation. With no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know about the output.

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 coverage is 100%, with package described as 'npm package name. Scoped packages (e.g. "@types/node") are accepted.' and version as 'Specific version to check... Defaults to the latest published version when omitted.' The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond this, but the schema is already sufficient. Baseline 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's purpose: a composite check combining deps.dev and bundlephobia to help decide whether to add an npm package. It specifies the exact questions it answers ('is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which overlap with this npm-focused functionality.

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 when to use it: when an agent asks about package safety, popularity, or size. It also specifies when not to use it ('NPM ecosystem only in v1') and directs to alternatives for other ecosystems ('PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'). This gives clear usage boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: it returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings over 500-char windows, and caps input at 200K chars with truncation flagging. These details go beyond annotations and fully disclose behavior.

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 concise yet packed with essential information: purpose, usage context, behavioral details, technical specs, and truncation policy. It is front-loaded with the main goal and every sentence contributes meaningfully, with no 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it processes text (embedding, chunking, cosine similarity), what the output contains (passages with offsets and scores), and limitations (200K char cap). This completeness ensures an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds value by explaining the output format (top-N passages, offsets, similarity scores) and by clarifying that 'text' is a previously fetched record. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone, justifying a slightly above-baseline score.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' specifying the action (semantic search) and resource (inside a fetched record). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining when to use each, providing high purpose clarity.

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 says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and provides concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article, long tool result). It also suggests pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding, offering clear guidance on when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: requires authenticated account, phone verification, SMS cap, webhook auto-disable. Annotations already indicate non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive; description complements well.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter.

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?

Covers requirements, types, delivery details, limitations, and return value. Adequate for a complex tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds rich meaning: explains type-specific params with examples, delivery constraints, and validation rules. Greatly enhances schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'proactive monitoring subscription', and specifies it returns the subscription id. Distinguishes from siblings like 'unsubscribe' 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?

Provides when to use (create subscription) and prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account). Lists supported types and delivery channels, but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the output format (category-bucketed examples with exact tool+argument shapes) and that it draws from a live catalog. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with common queries and is efficient in covering purpose, usage, and parameter details. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is comprehensive: explains when to use, what it returns, argument behavior, and connects to other tools. Fully adequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for 'topic'. The description adds practical context: omitting 'topic' gives a cross-category spread, and lists example topic values, enhancing the schema's description.

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 is an onboarding entry point that returns example questions. It specifies the verb 'returns' and resource 'category-bucketed example questions', and distinguishes from siblings by positioning as the first tool to use when unfamiliar with Pipeworx capabilities.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and 'to learn how to call the meta-tools'. Also provides guidance on omitting vs. passing the 'topic' argument for a focused set of questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains that the row is deactivated, not deleted, aligning with annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as ownership enforcement and impact on historical data availability.

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?

Two sentences conveying all necessary information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, then additional constraints and behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, constraint, behavioral nuance, and parameter context fully.

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 'id' is described as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' This adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the source and type of the id, aiding correct invocation.

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 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It specifies the action (cancel), resource (subscription), and identifier method. This distinguishes 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 explicitly states ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing a clear condition for use. It also explains the effect (deactivation, not deletion) and references recent_alerts for historical events, giving context for when to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds return value details (verdict, actual value, citation, percent delta) and data source, going beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is a single paragraph but well-structured with examples, use case, and output details. Slightly long but appropriate for complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, description fully explains return values, data sources, and scope. Covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Single parameter 'claim' with schema description covering format. Description provides additional examples and context. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but extra examples raise it.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples and domain (company-financial claims). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' Provides domain constraints and efficiency benefits, but does not explicitly list when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.