unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: idempotent (canceling same id is safe), non-destructive (deactivation), and ownership check. Consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true).
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, no redundant words. Every sentence provides essential information: action, ownership, and side effect.
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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, and result semantics fully. No gaps remain.
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 adds value by noting that the id originates from 'subscribe'. Baseline 3 is raised modestly for this extra context, though the schema already adequately describes the parameter.
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 'cancel' and the resource 'subscription by id'. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by specifying the action and ownership enforcement.
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 constraints ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and the behavioral outcome ('deactivated, not deleted; historical events remain'). This guides when to use and what to expect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar. Also, prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) could be confused. The set lacks clear boundaries between closely related tools.
Tool names are mostly descriptive and use underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), but there is no strict pattern. Some are verb_noun (e.g., resolve_entity), others are noun_verb (e.g., key_values) or just nouns (e.g., tag_stats). Mix of styles, but still readable.
34 tools is too many for a coherent server. The set covers many domains (OSM, Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets), making it feel bloated and unfocused. Ideally 3-15 tools for a single-purpose server.
The set is comprehensive for Pipeworx data but lacks focus. OSM Taginfo only has 3 tools (no creation/deletion). Prediction markets have many tools but still missing some like cancel trade. The domain is too broad to assess completeness meaningfully.