Textcase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context: default model detail, BYO key for Anthropic with direct payment, and a clear description of the return structure (per-model object with score, confidence, signals, raw_response plus 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?

The description is a compact two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action, includes key details (default model, BYO key), and immediately covers use cases. No redundant 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?

With 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, parameter roles, and return structure. It is complete for the complexity level.

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 has 100% description coverage, so each parameter's purpose is already provided. The description adds value by explaining the default model behavior for the 'models' parameter, clarifying that _apiKey is optional and only needed for Anthropic, and noting 'context' helps disambiguate common names.

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 probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility (0-100). It specifies the verb 'probe', the resource 'one or more LLMs', and the output metric. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on scoring visibility across models.

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 (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and mentions the default model and optional Anthropic key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with specific alternatives, though context signals mention 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?

Annotations already provide comprehensive safety and idempotency info. The description adds the behavioral detail that output is keyed by name, which is useful beyond the schema. 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?

The description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action. It is maximally concise with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one input parameter, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently explains purpose and output format. Lack of output schema is not a gap here because the return format is described.

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 'text' parameter. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning for the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 (convert text), the resource (text), and the outcome (return all cases keyed by name). It distinguishes from the sibling 'convert_case' by emphasizing 'ALL supported cases at once'.

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: when you need all cases simultaneously. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the key differentiator ('all at once') provides sufficient 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, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns structured answer with stable citation URIs and routes to one of many tools, 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 lengthy but front-loaded with key guidance. It includes examples and alternatives in a structured way. Minor redundancy with schema examples but overall efficient for the tool's 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 the tool's role as a default entry point routing to many sources, the description fully covers purpose, usage, examples, and alternatives. No output schema is needed, and the description is complete for the agent.

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 parameters. Description adds context on what kind of questions to ask and provides example phrases, which goes beyond the schema's aliases.

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 routes questions to authoritative structured data sources with citations. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives (web search, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_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?

Explicitly states when to use (factual questions about real-world entities, events, numbers) and when to use alternatives (hallucination-resistant single answer -> grounded, broad/multi-part -> deep_research). Includes example 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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by explaining experimental nature, current inactive candidate, and that it functions as a full working router with no fallback. 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?

Description is thorough but moderately lengthy (5 sentences). It is front-loaded with purpose and efficient in conveying necessary context. Could be slightly shorter but not wordy.

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?

Comprehensive for a beta tool: covers purpose, current state (no candidate active), usage comparison, and fallback behavior. No output schema but return shape is implied to match ask_pipeworx.

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% with all 6 parameters described. Description does not add additional meaning beyond schema, mentioning same arguments as ask_pipeworx but no new details. 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?

Description clearly states it's a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes from the stable router and clarifies it is a full working router.

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 to use exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and mentions results are compared to stable router for decisions. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but context implies it's for experimental routing testing.

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?

Description adds significant context beyond annotations: costs one extra LLM call, uses ONLY tool result, returns structured refusal reasons. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. 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?

Description is somewhat long but well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then mechanism, use cases, and cost trade-off. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but justified by 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?

No output schema, but description fully explains return format including answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, and refusal reasons. Covers behavioral details, usage constraints, and trade-off with sibling. Highly 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 description coverage is 100% with each alias described. Description adds 'Your question in natural language' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond schema. 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 states the tool is a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains it picks the right tool from many sources, fetches data, and extracts answer only from tool result. It clearly distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting cost and safety trade-off.

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 when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' with examples (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). Also states 'prefer 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?

The description extensively covers behavioral traits beyond annotations: safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuit, closed market status, wide-spread tradeability), resolver contract details (market_match_confidence, suggestions), cancellation rule parsing, and fan-out behavior. All annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent with the described 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 comprehensive but overly long (multiple paragraphs with many details). The first sentence effectively front-loads the purpose, but the density of examples and edge cases makes it less concise. It could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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 (multiple classifiers, fan-out examples, resolver contract, edge cases) and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers response shapes, safety routes, cancellation rules, and practical advice (e.g., checking match confidence before sizing). No gaps remain 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the market parameter's input types (slug, URL, question text) and providing examples. It also clarifies the depth and include_raw parameters with usage context. However, most parameter details are already in the schema, so value-add is moderate.

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 ('pull relevant Pipeworx data'). It specifies inputs (slug, URL, question text) and outputs (evidence packet + market-vs-model comparison). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage, though not explicitly differentiated.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'). It describes when to use the tool effectively. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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 mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: handling off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, returning citation URIs, and using specific data sources. This enriches understanding 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 a single paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads with user-facing queries and efficiently conveys purpose, usage, behavior, and output. Every sentence is informative 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?

The description covers key aspects: types of entities, data sources, sorting behavior, and output format. While it mentions 'paired data + citation URIs', a slightly more detailed explanation of the output structure would enhance completeness. No output schema exists, so the description largely compensates.

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%, but the description adds value by providing examples (e.g., tickers for companies, drug names) and explaining how the 'type' parameter determines the data source. This meaningfully supplements 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 uses clear phrases like 'Compare X and Y' and 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs' to state its purpose. It distinguishes itself from sequential lookups and specifies data sources for each entity type.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and mentions efficiency gains. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not discuss specific alternatives among 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and determinism are covered. The description adds value by noting 'keyless, offline', which informs the agent that no external authentication or network calls are needed. This extra behavioral context justifies a score above baseline.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, resource, and available options. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 tool is simple with only two required parameters and no output schema. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, provides sufficient information for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain return value format, but for a case conversion tool the output is implicitly the converted string. A slight gap exists in not specifying that the return is a string, but overall it is complete enough.

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. The description repeats the target case list almost verbatim from the schema's target parameter description. It does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The 'keyless, offline' remark is not parameter-specific, so baseline score 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 action ('Convert text to a target case') and enumerates all possible target cases (camel, pascal, snake, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The parenthetical 'keyless, offline' further specifies the mode of operation, which distinguishes it from potential siblings like an online API version.

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 the tool is for converting text cases, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'all_cases' mentioned in siblings). There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance. However, for a simple utility tool, the lack of explicit alternatives is understandable, but it still leaves room for improvement.

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 goes far beyond annotations, detailing the internal decomposition, parallel tool invocation, findings packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, cited times, gaps[], contradictions[]), hop iteration, semantic excerpting, and expected latency (15-90s). Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent, which the description confirms 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 lengthy but every sentence provides critical information. It is well-organized with logical flow: account requirements, core mechanism, usage guidance, behavior details, and latency. While not perfectly concise, it is efficiently structured given the tool's 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?

Despite having no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description comprehensively covers expected behavior, edge cases (empty gaps for uncatalogued topics, semantic excerpting), formatting (pipeworx:// citations), and performance (15-90s). It leaves no major gaps for an agent to guess.

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 significant value: it explains the depth enum values ('quick=3 facets', 'standard=5+gap recovery+contradictions', 'thorough=8+iterative+contradictions+paid') and states that the question can be 'broad/multi-part'. This enriches the schema's basic definitions.

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: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1369 STRUCTURED data sources' in a single call, decomposing questions into facets and routing to tools in parallel. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' (single lookup) and 'bet_research', and notes when not to use it (breaking news, current 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?

Extensive guidance is provided: when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data), when not to use (single lookups, breaking news), prerequisites (account required, free vs paid tier for 'thorough'), and explicit alternatives ('use ask_pipeworx instead' for unsigned users or single 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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas... each result is ready to call directly.' This discloses output behavior and usability 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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then details the output. It is efficient but slightly lengthy due to listing many domains. Every sentence earns its place, so it's 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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (names, descriptions, schemas with examples) and behavior (top-N, ready to call). It covers all necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret 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 does not add significant new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., aliases are listed in schema). However, it reinforces the natural language usage of the 'query' 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 tool's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the primary discovery tool for browsing available options.

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 advises to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' It also lists use cases like browsing or searching for tools in various domains, providing 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: it fans out across multiple data sources (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), returns specific fields, mentions potential soft-failure for patents, and explains it makes one parallel call. 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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with example queries and then detailing functionality. It front-loads the core purpose and uses a bullet-like list to present output fields. A few sentences could be tighter, but overall it is efficient for the complexity covered.

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 (multi-source profile with multiple data types), the description is remarkably complete. It lists all data sources, the specific fields returned, the parallel call nature, and limitations. Without an output schema, the description shoulders the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides minor added value by reiterating parameter format (zero-padded CIK) and confirming that names are not supported, but does not add substantial meaning 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 provides numerous example queries and explicitly states it returns a full cross-source profile of a US public company. It clearly distinguishes from granular tools by advising preference over chaining single-pack lookups, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'compare_entities' or 'deep_research'. The verb 'returns' and specific output fields make the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('ALWAYS PREFER over chaining... when the user asks for a holistic view') and when-not-to-use guidance ('names not supported — use resolve_entity first'). It also notes limitations such as patent data sunsetting, providing a clear usage 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?

Description confirms destructive nature, consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true). Does not add new behavioral details beyond deletion, but annotations already convey safety profile. 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state action and usage context. No superfluous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, when to use, and relationship to siblings. 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 one parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectation.

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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' Identifies the resource (memory) and action (delete), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remember and recall.

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 ('context is stale, task is done, clear sensitive data') and suggests pairing with remember and recall, providing clear 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 destructiveHint as false, indicating a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds that it fetches the page and extracts content, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't go beyond what annotations imply, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 with a bullet list of use cases, efficiently conveying purpose, behavior, and applications without fluff. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the purpose, process (fetch, extract, emit), and use cases. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

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% description coverage for both parameters (url and max_links). The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as URL format or link count details. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', specifying the verb (generate), resource (llms.txt file), and purpose (AI crawler indexing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check by being the dedicated tool for generating the llms.txt file.

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 lists explicit use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor AI visibility. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the use cases are clear and cover the main scenarios, providing good guidance without excluding 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 specify readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing return fields and use cases, with 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and results, 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and return data.

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 extra parameter information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from siblings like 'subscribe' and '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 advises when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear context and 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?

The description discloses that the tool is free, does not count against tool-call quota, is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and that the team reads digests daily impacting roadmap. This adds behavioral context beyond the sparse 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 a single paragraph but logically organized: starts with purpose, then usage conditions, then tips, then operational details. Every sentence adds value with no redundant 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 (one nested object) and no output schema, the description covers everything necessary: purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, rate limits, and cost. No gaps are 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 descriptions, but the description adds meaning: explains each enum variant ('bug = something broke', etc.), advises on message content (be specific, 1-2 sentences), and clarifies that context fields are optional and their meaning (pack slug, tool name, vertical).

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 about bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It explicitly lists the categories and provides examples, making it distinct from sibling tools which are all analytical or data-retrieval oriented.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each feedback type, tells users not to paste end-user prompts, and mentions rate limits and quota. This clearly guides appropriate invocation.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), description adds that data comes from CF analytics-engine, no PII, and caching behavior (5min-1h). 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?

Three concise paragraphs with bullet-like uses. Every sentence adds value without fluff. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters completely. 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?

Single parameter 'window' has 100% schema coverage. Description adds meaningful context: 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.'

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 tool returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over time windows. Distinct from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' by focusing on what other AI agents are using.

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, guiding when to use the tool. Could explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings, but the context is clear.

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) already indicate safety and non-destructiveness. The description adds detailed behavioral insights: the FILL CHECK logic, SEMANTIC ANCHOR (Jaccard similarity), PARTITION FILTER, and what realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means. This goes well beyond annotations, disclosing when not to trade.

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 into modes and sub-sections, with brief but informative sentences. Each sentence adds value. However, some phrasing is slightly verbose (e.g., 'use this if you know the specific Polymarket event') and could be tightened.

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 documents the response format (opportunities[] with fields, partition_check with fields, fill_check results). It covers all modes, internal checks, and caveats, making it complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret 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% (both parameters described). The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of each parameter, providing examples ('fed-decision-may-2026'), and clarifying behavior when no arguments are passed (triggers trending_scan). This enriches understanding 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 the tool's purpose: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It specifies the action, resource, and method, and distinguishes between modes (trending_scan, event, topic). This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_fill_risk.

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: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass `event` for the strongest per-event partition_check, or `topic` for a themed cross-event scan.' It recommends `event` for specific markets and `topic` for cross-event scanning, and even redirects to an alternative: 'For custom sizing use 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral context: caching at 1h, details on edge calculations, response structure with diagnostics, and specific filter behaviors. It goes far beyond the 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 quite long but well-structured: starts with a clear high-level purpose, then details methodology, response, and knobs. It is front-loaded with the most important information. While not concise, the organization helps usability.

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 complexity, no output schema, and 9 parameters, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the response top-level structure, segments, diagnostic info, and edge components. There are no apparent gaps for an agent to use this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For each parameter, it explains purpose, typical defaults, and practical usage guidance (e.g., 'Bump for very thin partitions; drop to 0 if you have a smarter fill model.'). This is exemplary.

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 scans Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, specifically for 'what should I bet on today' use case. It details three model segments, distinguishing it from generic market scanners.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (discovering opportunities, avoiding paging hundreds of markets) and explains various knobs for filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, missing explicit exclusions.

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, idempotentHint), the description discloses data sources (daily snapshots), computation details (decay from daily closes, not intraday), and limits (60-day TTL). 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 detailed and front-loaded with purpose. It is somewhat dense and mixes parameters with response structure, but every sentence adds value. Slightly longer than necessary, but not wasteful.

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 thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and covers all aspects of the tool's behavior, including limitations and edge cases. 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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates parameter defaults (days=14, window='1wk') and max lookback (30) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's 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 the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers a specific question about edge freshness. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence rather than current 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 provides a clear context for usage: to check how long an edge has existed and whether it's decaying. It implies when to use this tool over raw edges but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral context: walks ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), explains forced_directional_risk and thin_legs, and warns about dominant loss mode from partial fills.

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 with clear mode sections and front-loaded purpose, but slightly verbose in places (e.g., 'the dominant loss mode in real arb-bot P&L'). Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

No output schema, so description fully compensates by listing all return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict, theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk). Covers complex 4-parameter tool completely.

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 beyond the schema: explains default values (size_usd=1000, clamp), single-market vs basket parameter usage, side auto-detection for baskets, and how size_usd is interpreted differently for buys vs sells and baskets.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('check realizable-vs-theoretical edge') and resources ('live CLOB order-book depth'), clearly distinguishing single-market and basket modes. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500', providing clear when-to-use and rationale about theoretical overround not being capturable and partial fill risks.

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 is highly transparent about behavioral traits beyond annotations. It explains the two modes, response structure, safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters), including why they fire. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false).

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 clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) and front-loaded purpose. However, it is verbose; some details like the full topic shortcut list could be condensed. Every sentence provides value but brevity could be improved.

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 the response structure: leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters. It covers safety field meanings and edge cases. Completeness is thorough for a complex tool with 3 optional params.

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: explains the two modes, lists topic shortcuts, and how explicit tickers override. This aids understanding of parameter interaction beyond 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 the tool computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue analysis. The verb 'cross-venue spread' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 explains two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and provides guidance on when to use each. It warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warning, implying explicit mode may be needed. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or exclude alternative 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?

Annotations already declare safe read operations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description adds behaviors: listing keys on omission, and scoping to identifier. 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?

The description is slightly long but well-structured, front-loading the main action and then providing context. 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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains what is returned (value or list). It covers pairing with remember/forget, scope, and usage context completely.

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: omitting 'key' lists all keys. This clarifies the optional nature beyond the schema definition.

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 a value saved via remember or lists all keys when the argument is omitted. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings '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?

It explains when to use (to look up stored context) and mentions alternatives: 'remember to save, forget to delete'. Also notes the scope (per identifier).

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, implying no state changes. However, description explicitly says setting mark_read:true flags events as read, altering state. This is a direct contradiction. Description adds transparency about the mutation, but contradiction forces score of 1 per rules.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by key features and usage notes. Efficient and 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 output fields, filtering, mark_read side effect, and alternative access. With no output schema, the description adequately describes return structure. Some minor gaps (e.g., limit default) are covered by 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 all parameters described. Description adds some extra context (e.g., example filter type, mark_read effect) but does not significantly extend meaning beyond schema. 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 retrieves recent alerts from a subscription feed, listing key fields returned (source, citation_uri, payload). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subscriptions by focusing on event content.

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 filtering guidance (type, since ISO timestamp) and explains mark_read behavior. Mentions polling suitability and alternative REST endpoint, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools beyond 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: fans out to multiple sources, fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews), soft-fails for USPTO, and explains the 'since' parameter. 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads use cases and then covers sources and parameters. Every sentence adds value; there is no 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return structure (changes grouped by source, total count, citation URIs). It covers all inputs, sources, fallbacks, and provides an alternative tool for different 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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining expected values for 'value' (ticker or CIK) and giving examples for 'since'. It also clarifies that 'type' currently 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 what's new with X, latest on Y, etc., and specifies the sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO). It differentiates from sibling 'entity_profile' by noting it's for static profiles regardless of window.

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 when to use (e.g., 'What's new with X') and when not to use ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'). This provides clear guidance for an AI agent.

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 write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context: scoping by identifier, 24-hour retention for anonymous sessions, and pairing with recall/forget. No contradictions; the description enhances understanding 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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured. The first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, and persistence. It could optionally mention the return value (e.g., success confirmation), but this is not critical.

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 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds value by providing example keys (e.g., 'subject_property', 'target_ticker') and clarifying value as any text. It reinforces the key-value pair concept, justifying a score above 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 saves data for reuse across conversations or sessions, with specific examples (resolved ticker, target address, user preference). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget'. The purpose is highly specific and actionable.

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 clear guidance on when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and pairs with recall/forget. It also notes persistence differences for authenticated vs. anonymous users. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, such as avoiding storage of sensitive data.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally, replacing manual lookups. This provides useful behavioral insight 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, starting with example queries to grab attention, then stating the core purpose, and finally detailing supported types. While it contains multiple sentences, each adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining return values for each type, including citation URIs. It also mentions internal cascading. The only minor gap is the lack of error handling or edge cases, but overall it is sufficiently 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 both parameters. The description enriches these by providing examples (e.g., ticker, CIK, name for 'value') and clarifying the output for each enum value of 'type'. This adds meaning 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: resolving a name to a canonical identifier. It provides example queries and specifies what is returned for each entity type (company, drug). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like 'entity_profile' or 'compare_entities'.

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 FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also details supported types and their outputs. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the context is sufficient for correct selection 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds value by explaining orchestration (calls ai_visibility_check internally, requires API key for Anthropic) and output format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). 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: purpose, mechanism, use case/output. Front-loaded, every sentence adds value, no 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 all critical aspects: comparative orchestration, model selection, API key, context, input constraints (2-8 entities), and output format. No gaps given complexity and lack of 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%, but description adds nuance: first entity is treated as subject for narrative, explains context disambiguation, and notes default model. Adds 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?

Clearly states it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, using specific verbs (compare, probe, ranks, surfaces). Distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check by explicitly mentioning it as the underlying probe.

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 a concrete use case: competitive AI-marketing audits. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives like compare_entities, but context is clear enough for 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds concrete behavioral details: partial failure graceful degradation, bundlephobia timing (5-30s), and sources_failed field. This goes well beyond annotations to inform the agent.

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 long but every sentence adds value. It is well-structured with a compact summary block. No filler, though slightly verbose in the middle. Overall efficient.

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 return fields (summary, per-advisory, links, alternative versions) and covers failure modes, ecosystem scope, and timing. This fully equips the agent with necessary context.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds useful context: scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest. This adds meaning beyond the schema, justifying a 4 (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: a composite check for deciding whether to add an npm package to a project, spanning deps.dev and bundlephobia. It lists return metrics and scopes to NPM, distinguishing it from any sibling tools that might handle other ecosystems.

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 whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"', and provides direct guidance for other ecosystems (PyPI/Maven etc.) via deps.dev:version directly. This clearly tells when to use and when not to.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds technical details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag. 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?

Three focused sentences with no redundancy. Purpose stated first, followed by details. Every sentence earns 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?

Covers use case, technical specifics, output description (passages with offsets and scores), limits, and pairing advice. No output schema needed; description suffices.

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 100%. Description adds value: max chars for text, example queries, limit range and default. Exceeds schema info.

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?

Title and description clearly state semantic search inside a fetched record. Provides specific use case (record too large for prompt) and examples. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 when to use (when record is too big). Saves context and offers verification via offsets. Mentions alternative tool for grounding. No explicit 'when not to use', but overall clear 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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description aligns with non-readOnly (creates a resource) and adds key behavioral details: requires OAuth, returns subscription ID, supports multiple types and delivery channels, with specific constraints (e.g., SMS 10/day cap). Does not contradict 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 fairly long but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains requirements, types, and delivery channels in a logical order. Every sentence adds value, though a few minor redundancies could be trimmed. It is front-loaded and clear.

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 (multiple types, delivery channels, no output schema), the description covers the main return value (subscription ID), required auth, type-specific parameters, and delivery behavior. It lacks explicit error handling or failure scenarios, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description substantially enriches each parameter. It provides type-specific examples for 'params' (e.g., sec_8k with items codes) and detailed delivery options with validation requirements and webhook signing details. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 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 the tool's purpose: 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('subscription'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_subscriptions', 'unsubscribe', and 'recent_alerts' by its focus on creation.

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 prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account; anonymous/BYO cannot persist) and details on when to use it (for setting up monitoring). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance. Overall, it offers clear context for appropriate usage.

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 details beyond annotations: explains it returns category-bucketed examples with exact tool+argument shapes, and that it's an onboarding tool. Annotations already cover readOnly/safety.

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?

Front-loaded with example queries, detailed but each sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly shorter but generally 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?

For a tool with no output schema, it fully describes return format (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shapes) and usage scenarios. Meets the needs of an onboarding 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 baseline is 3, but description adds value by explaining default behavior (full spread) and providing example topic values.

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 the onboarding entry point that returns example questions with tool usage, distinguishing it from siblings like ask_pipeworx which answer questions.

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 this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and explains how to call with or without a topic. No explicit exclusions, but context is clear.

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?

Description adds context beyond annotations: row is deactivated (not deleted) so historical events stay available via recent_alerts. Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent, so description complements without contradicting.

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 with no fluff. Front-loaded with action, then relevant constraints and behavior. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, constraints (ownership enforcement), and behavioral outcome (deactivation). Sufficient for 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 covers 100% of parameter with description already stating the id comes from subscribe. Description repeats this but adds no new semantic meaning, 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?

Description clearly states verb (cancel) and resource (subscription), and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by mentioning ownership enforcement and deactivation 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 states ownership enforcement (only cancel own subscriptions), providing clear condition for use. Does not mention when not to use, but given simplicity, context is sufficient.

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 not destructive. The description adds valuable details: the two verification paths (SEC EDGAR+XBRL for financial, grounded pipeline for others), the exact verdict types, and that it returns citations. 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?

The description is informative but slightly verbose at ~150 words. Every sentence adds value, but it could be tightened without losing clarity. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with keywords.

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 covers return value: verdict, actual value with citation, and reasoning. It addresses both financial and non-financial claims, making it complete for this complex 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 baseline is 3. The description adds extensive meaning: examples for 'claim', detailed explanation of 'tolerance_pct' including default and use cases. This significantly aids the agent in correct parameter usage.

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 does natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb phrases and examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by focusing on factual checks with a structured path for financial claims.

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 whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the two internal paths and mentions it replaces multiple sequential calls, providing clear when-to-use context.

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