list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by listing the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count), which is especially helpful given the absence of an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and is highly 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?
For a simple, read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, return structure, and use cases. The annotations handle safety and idempotency, so no critical context is missing.
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 only parameter, include_inactive, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and default value. The tool description does not add additional parameter info, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List the caller's active subscriptions' — a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling mutation tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by framing it as a review action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This directly ties to common workflows involving sibling tools and gives clear context for when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The ask_pipeworx family creates real ambiguity: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, leaving an agent no principled way to choose between them. discover_tools and suggest_questions also overlap as meta-tools for navigating the catalog, though the remaining tools (five polymarket_* tools, entity tools, subscription lifecycle) are well-delineated by their detailed cross-referenced descriptions.
The set is uniformly snake_case with coherent subfamilies (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, remember/recall/forget), but it mixes imperative verb_phrase names (validate_claim, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt) with noun_phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, ai_visibility_check), and the_committee_convene breaks the pattern entirely with a full-sentence name. The inconsistency is stylistic rather than chaotic, so it stays readable.
At 32 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and the breadth is not fully earned: ask_pipeworx_beta is self-admittedly redundant right now, and several tools feel bolted on from unrelated domains (the_committee_convene, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check). The core data-research and prediction-market scope would be tighter and more navigable at roughly 20-24 tools.
The primary domain — authoritative data lookup, entity research, and prediction-market analysis — is covered with no dead ends: query (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), profile (resolve_entity, entity_profile, compare_entities), track (recent_changes), verify (validate_claim), bet research (bet_research, polymarket_edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, kalshi_spread), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), and memory (remember/recall/forget) form complete lifecycles. Minor gaps exist only at the periphery: no execution layer for prediction-market trades (research stops at fill-risk advice) and single-tool coverage for the npm/llms.txt/AI-visibility side-domains.