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?
Description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, soft deactivation (not deletion), and historical event availability. It does not contradict annotations; in fact, it explains the meaning of 'destructiveHint: false' and 'idempotentHint: true' in practical terms.
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 that cover the core action and key behavioral details without any fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds important context.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers what the tool does, ownership constraints, data effect, and relation to history. No missing necessary information.
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 fully described in the schema ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'). The description reinforces this but does not add new information. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 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 verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'subscription by id', and distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' (creates) and 'list_subscriptions' (lists). Ownership enforcement and soft deletion differentiate it further.
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 ownership enforcement and the soft-deactivation behavior, implying when to use (stop own alerts) and what happens to data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, which is acceptable but not perfect.
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.
The four card tools are distinct, but the majority of the server is a Pipeworx/prediction-market platform with heavily overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all serve similar query/discovery purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical twin of ask_pipeworx. The six Polymarket tools and the ai_visibility/scan_competitor pair also have fuzzy boundaries that would make tool selection error-prone.
All names are snake_case, but the pattern is highly inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_card, search_cards, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), some are noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, bet_research), and some are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The ask_pipeworx variants share a name but differ only by suffix, which is not a clear action-oriented pattern.
35 tools is squarely in the 'too many' territory, and the bloat is worse because the server is named Tcgdex while only 4 of 35 tools actually relate to trading cards. The remaining 31 tools form a sprawling multi-domain platform that mixes data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility checks, and one-off utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency.
For the TCGdex card surface, the read-only workflows are covered well: search_cards leads to get_card, and list_sets leads to get_set, with no obvious dead ends. For the broader Pipeworx functionality, the set includes discovery, query, grounding, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, so the main workflows are supported—though the overall scope is sprawling rather than focused.