Thegamesdb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds critical behavioral context: the default model is free (Workers AI), Anthropic requires a BYO key with direct payment, and the return format includes per-model scores. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then model details, then return format and use cases. No wasted words, highly 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?

The description covers all 4 parameters and return structure. For a probe tool with no output schema, it adequately explains inputs and outputs. Minor omissions: no mention of error handling or rate limits, but overall sufficient given the annotations and simplicity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by explaining the default model, how to probe Anthropic with '_apiKey', and examples for 'context'. This adds value 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 verb 'probe', the resource 'LLMs', and the outcome 'score visibility (0-100) per model'. It also provides use case examples like 'AI-marketing audits', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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 specifies when to use the tool (for brand visibility checks) and provides practical guidance on default vs. paid models via '_apiKey'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with siblings, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it routes to 3744 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, adding value without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is somewhat long but front-loaded with the key 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' instruction. Sentences are mostly relevant, though could be tightened by removing redundant examples. Still well-structured.

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

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

No output schema, but description explains return type (structured answer with citation URIs). Given the tool's simplicity (single input), this is complete enough. Could mention pagination or limits, but 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 coverage is 100% and describes the question parameter and its aliases. Description does not add new semantics beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states it answers factual questions using structured data from authoritative sources, distinguishes from web search, and lists specific domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) and example queries. Verb 'ask' + resource 'Pipeworx' is specific.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' for factual questions, provides positive examples, and implies when not to use (general web search). Clear context for choosing this over 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, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: returns {answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason} on success or explicit refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, etc.). It also notes the extra LLM call cost, surpassing annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with key attributes. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output format in a few sentences, though the list of refusal reasons makes it slightly dense. High signal-to-noise ratio.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully details the return structure and refusal modes. Combined with annotations, it provides a complete picture for safe invocation. It also addresses cost and sibling differentiation, covering all needed 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 description coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters are aliases for 'question', each with a description). The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and contrasts with sibling 'ask_pipeworx' for casual lookups. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and scope.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' It specifies high-stakes domains like financial verdicts, legal claims, etc., and notes the extra cost trade-off.

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 extensive behavioral details beyond annotations, including fan-out patterns, response shapes, resolver contract, parent event extraction, news fallback, safety mechanisms, and cancellation rule risks. 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 long and detailed, which is justified by complexity, but it lacks conciseness. Important information is buried in paragraphs; bullet points or sections would improve structure.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input, classification, fan-out, response fields, resolver contract, parent events, news handling, safety, and resolution-rule risk.

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 context (e.g., depth options, market input forms) but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters 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 function: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies input types and output, and distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on data gathering rather than edge calculation.

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

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

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' Also mentions blocking conditions (low-confidence, closed markets) but could contrast more directly with 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?

Discloses data sources for each type (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA/trials for drugs), explains handling of off-calendar fiscal years, describes result sorting by primary metric, and mentions citation URIs. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with front-loaded examples and clear sections. Slightly verbose (e.g., parenthetical on fiscal years could be shorter), but every sentence serves a purpose. Minor length reduction possible without losing value.

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

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

Given no output schema, description adequately describes return data (paired data + citation URIs) and result ordering. Covers both entity types comprehensively. No gaps for agent to select or invoke 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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains what 'type' enum values entail (specific data fields), interprets 'values' as tickers/CIKs for companies and drug names, and gives examples. Schema coverage is 100%, but description still provides crucial context.

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 natural language examples ('Compare X and Y', 'head to head') and explicitly states the action: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It also distinguishes from sequential lookups.

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

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

Provides explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' Also indicates when to use by listing query patterns like 'which is bigger' and 'rank these companies'.

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

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

Discloses key traits beyond annotations: grounded answers, never invents, returns gaps for unanswered facets, requires account, and provides performance expectations. 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?

Thorough but efficient description; every sentence adds value. Slightly long but well-structured and front-loaded with key 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?

Covers return format, prerequisites, time expectations, and constraints despite no output schema. Comprehensive for a complex multi-source research tool.

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

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

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context: explains decomposition, enum meanings, and plan requirements, enhancing understanding beyond raw 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 performs grounded multi-source research in one call, decomposing questions and routing to parallel tools. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by its scope and approach.

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 use for broad/multi-part questions and recommends ask_pipeworx for single lookups. Also notes prerequisites (Pipeworx account, paid plan for 'thorough' depth) and expected response time.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: returns top-N most relevant tools with schemas and examples, ready to 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then output details. Every sentence adds value; 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and 27 sibling tools, the description explains what it does, when to use, and what it returns (names, descriptions, schemas). It could mention the number of tools indexed, but is otherwise 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds domain examples and clarifies the main 'query' parameter, but does not add significant 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 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and enumerates specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools which are more specialized lookups.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available', providing clear context for when to use this tool over 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 indicate read-only, open world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds detailed behavioral traits: fans out across multiple sources (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), notes USPTO patent sunset and soft-fail, and specifies return structure. Contradiction-free.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with example queries and structured with a clear explanation of sources and returns. While it is relatively long, each sentence adds value, and the structure aids comprehension. Could be slightly more concise but is still effective.

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 (multiple data sources, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains all return components (CIK, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and mentions edge cases like the patent sunset. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 described. The description adds extra context: type must be 'company', value accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK, and explicitly says names are not supported, along with a pointer to resolve_entity. This adds value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it provides a full cross-source profile of US public companies, with specific examples and explicit differentiation from chaining single-pack lookups. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_entity and 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 advises to prefer this tool over chaining single-pack lookups for holistic views, and notes that names are not supported, directing users to resolve_entity first. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about clearing sensitive data and stale context, aligning with annotations without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose. No extraneous 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?

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage context, and relationship to sibling tools comprehensively.

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% for the single parameter 'key'. Description does not add further meaning beyond what schema provides, 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 uses specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory by key'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings 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 states when to use: stale context, task done, or clear sensitive data. Mentions pairing with related tools but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral detail: fetching the page, extracting title/description/key links, and emitting standard markdown format. This contextualizes the tool's behavior beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or 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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, good annotations, and no output schema needed, the description is complete. It explains the process and output format (llms.txt markdown) adequately.

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 (url, max_links) fully described. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states it generates a llms.txt file for a URL, with specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'llms.txt'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation rather than overall AI presence scanning.

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

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

The description explicitly lists three useful scenarios: client site indexing, personal drafting, and competitor auditing. This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes the front boxart image URL, which is not in 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with an example. It contains no unnecessary words and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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

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

Given the simplicity of the tool, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description adequately explains input (id) and output (full metadata including boxart URL). 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% and already documents both parameters. The description adds only an example call (get_game({ id: 108139 })) and no new semantic information 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 tool retrieves full metadata for a single game by TheGamesDB id, including the front boxart image URL. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_games.

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

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

The description implies usage when you have a specific TheGamesDB id, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives like search_games for broader 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by confirming it lists all genres and giving an example call, which 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 two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous 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 the tool's simplicity (no required params, no output schema), the description is complete: it states the output, purpose, and shows usage.

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 optional _apiKey is described in the schema. The description does not add new parameter semantics but provides an example usage, which is helpful but not required.

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 all game genres known to TheGamesDB (id, name)', specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'game genres', and the output fields (id, name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_platforms' or 'get_game'.

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 mentions 'Useful for resolving genre ids', providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns all platforms with specific fields and includes an example call, but does not disclose potential limits or additional 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?

Two sentences and an example: no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the example demonstrates usage efficiently.

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 list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately informs about the output fields and usage. It could mention the result format (e.g., array of objects), but it is largely sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 optional _apiKey parameter. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already provides adequate meaning, so 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 'List all gaming platforms known to TheGamesDB (id, name, alias)', specifying the verb, resource, and exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_games or get_game.

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 phrase 'Useful for resolving platform ids' provides a clear use case. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by listing the returned fields and default behavior (active only), which aids the agent in understanding the output.

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 that front-load the main purpose and return fields, 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 no output schema, the description enumerates return fields. Annotations cover safety, parameter is documented, and usage context is provided. Complete for a list tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the only parameter include_inactive described. Description does not add further detail beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe by explaining its role in reviewing and finding ids to cancel.

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 this for reviewing monitored items before adding more or to find an id to cancel. Provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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 are mostly false (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so description adds essential context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, team reads digests daily, signal affects roadmap. 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient phrasing, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral constraints, and parameter hints. It is complete for the complexity of a feedback tool with nested objects and enums.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds usage-level guidance (e.g., describe in terms of Pipeworx tools) but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides for each 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 is for sending feedback (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) to the Pipeworx team. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only feedback mechanism among many query/monitoring tools.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use each feedback type (bug, feature, etc.) and what not to do (don't paste end-user prompt). Also mentions rate limits, free usage, and that it doesn't count against tool-call quota, providing clear guidance on when and how to use.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds important context: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, cached (5min-1h). 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?

Two concise paragraphs with bullet points for use cases. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. Information is front-loaded with the primary function stated first.

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 (read-only, one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage context, data source, privacy, caching, and return content. No gaps remain.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a descriptive enum for 'window'. The description adds extra semantic guidance: shorter windows for hot now, longer for steady-state demand, which adds value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on aggregated trending data from other AI agents.

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

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

The description explicitly lists three use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, checking alignment). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use cases are clear enough to differentiate from other 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 mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral context: how it walks child markets, checks monotonicity, performs partition check, semantic anchor with Jaccard similarity, partition filter, fill check against live CLOB depth, and realizable edge vs theoretical edge. 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 well-structured with front-loaded requirement and clear sections. It is somewhat verbose with technical details (e.g., Jaccard threshold 0.30), but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly 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?

Given the complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, mode selection, internal logic, response structure (opportunities, partition_check, fill_check), and references to companion tools. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, and the description adds substantial meaning: it distinguishes event as single-event mode and topic as cross-event mode, provides examples, and clarifies that exactly one must be provided. This goes far beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between event mode and topic mode, and the title is clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and 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 explicitly states when to use event mode vs topic mode, provides examples, and warns that calling with no arguments fails. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives, but the guidance within the tool 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 already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent. Description adds enormous detail: internal models, caching (1h KV), edge calculation, filtering logic, and diagnostics. 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?

Well-structured with sections for model families, filters, response layout. Somewhat verbose but necessary given complexity. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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

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

Comprehensive for a complex tool: explains response structure (by_segment, diagnostics), caching, edge calculation, and filtering. Compensates for lack of output schema effectively.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds depth: explains tradeable-edge knobs, partition leg Kelly, default values, and usage guidance (e.g., when to adjust slippage). Significantly enhances understanding 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 the tool scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, targeting 'what should I bet on today'. Distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on disagreement detection.

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: discovering opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. Does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but context from siblings implies other tools for specific arbitrage strategies.

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 confirm read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant value by detailing response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and disclosing limitations (60-day snapshot TTL, decay computed from daily closes, not intraday). 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, response, limits). It is informative without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating default values) prevents a perfect score, but it is efficiently written overall.

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 lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with their subfields (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days, etc.) and covers limitations (TTL, snapshot start, daily closes). This provides complete context for the agent to understand what the tool returns.

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% for both parameters with clear descriptions. The description restates the parameters with default values and adds the 'max 30' constraint, which is already present in the schema clamp (2-30). No additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from snapshots. It uses specific verbs like 'track' and 'answer' to describe what the tool does, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical trends 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 explains the contextual use case (differentiating between fresh and old edges) and implies when to use this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other use cases, such as 'polymarket_edges' for current edge 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 confirm readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. Description adds details on walking the ladder, returning specific fields, and basket mode risks, all consistent with annotations. 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?

Dense and well-structured with clear sections and bold key terms. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise given the length.

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, description fully explains return values for both modes, covers edge cases (thin books, partial fills), and provides enough context 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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: explains purpose, defaults, constraints (size_usd clamp), and auto-determination of side in basket mode, going beyond schema 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?

Description clearly states 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. It contrasts with siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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

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

Explicitly advises 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and warns about thin books and partial fills, 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds extensive behavioral context: mode selection, response structure (leg-by-leg prices, matched spread, safety fields), and detailed explanation of compatibility_warning conditions (non-equivalent bet shapes, semantic mismatch) and temporal alignment. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value for understanding a complex tool. Some redundancy exists (e.g., explanation of compatibility_warning), but overall it is structured and informative without excessive padding.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: modes, response fields (leg-by-leg prices, matched spread, safety fields), and conditions for meaningful spreads. It could be more explicit about the exact output format (e.g., JSON structure), but it is mostly complete for an AI agent to infer usage.

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 each parameter described. The description goes beyond by explaining the two modes, listing valid topic macros, and noting that explicit tickers override topic-mapped sides. This adds meaningful context for parameter usage beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket. It defines two modes and the response structure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or compare_entities, which may also involve cross-venue comparisons.

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

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance via two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and warns when compatibility_warning fires, indicating spreads may not be meaningful. It does not, however, contrast with alternative tools like polymarket_arbitrage or search_within for broader cross-venue analysis.

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, which are consistent with the description. The description adds scoping context and relationships with siblings, but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations capture.

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 (two sentences) with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the action verb.

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

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and scoping adequately. It integrates well with annotations and the input schema. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a retrieval 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% and the parameter 'key' is described. The description adds concrete examples of what keys represent (e.g., 'user's target ticker, an address, prior research notes'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic description.

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

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

The description starts with a specific verb ('Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys'), clearly identifying the tool's primary actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'forget' by mentioning them and their roles.

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

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

The description explains when to use the tool ('to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch') and its scoping ('Scoped to your identifier'). It pairs with siblings but does not explicitly state when not to use it, which is acceptable given the clarity.

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 and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: the mark_read side effect (flagging events as read), polling suitability, and the underlying feed URL. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but the added detail exceeds the annotation 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?

Five sentences efficiently cover purpose, return structure, filtering, mark_read, and polling/alternative access. No wasted words; front-loaded with core action. 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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It covers major behaviors (read, filter, mark_read, polling) and even offers an external API. It lacks details on pagination or the limit parameter's behavior, but for a read tool with clear parameters, it is nearly complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining 'since' as ISO timestamp, giving an example for 'type' (sec_8k), and clarifying mark_read behavior ('so the next call only shows newer ones'). This adds meaningful semantic value 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 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed,' specifying the verb and resource. It also details the return contents (source, citation_uri, raw event payload). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recent_changes' or 'search_within', which would elevate clarity to a 5.

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

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

The description implies usage for polling ('Polls work fine') and mentions filtering options, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also provides an alternative API endpoint but no comparison to sibling read tools, leaving agents to infer 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description details the fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT/GNews, and USPTO, including fallback logic and soft-failure. It also describes the response structure (changes[] grouped by source + total_changes + URIs). 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 efficiently covers purpose, behavior, and alternatives. It front-loads example queries. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it's well-structured and informative.

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

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

Given the complexity (multiple sources, fallbacks, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned and how the tool behaves. It also references the alternative tool for static profiles. A small gap could be more precise about the CITATION URIs, but it's sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining relative date shorthand and offering concrete usage advice for the 'since' parameter. It also clarifies that 'type' only supports 'company'.

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

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

The description clearly specifies the tool returns a change feed for a company covering multiple sources (SEC, news, patents) in a recent time window, with example queries like 'What's new with X'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by contrasting dynamic vs static profiles.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...' and recommended window values like 'Use 30d or 1m for typical monitoring'. It also explains fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews) and soft-failure of USPTO.

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 include destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds key behaviors: scoped by identifier, persistent vs. anonymous session retention (24 hours). 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?

The description is informative but slightly lengthy. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage and details. Could be slightly more concise, but earns its length.

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 2 simple params and no output schema, the description fully covers usage, storage behavior, session scope, and sibling relationships. 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 covers 100% with descriptions. Description adds value by providing example key formats ('subject_property', 'target_ticker') and value types, enhancing understanding.

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/sessions, and gives concrete examples (e.g., resolved ticker, user preference). It distinguishes from siblings like recall 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?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and mentions pairing with recall/forget. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides clear 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints and specifying the exact return fields (ticker, CIK, citation URI for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand for drug). It also mentions auto-disambiguation for company names, which is a useful behavioral insight.

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 efficient. It opens with engaging examples, then a clear one-sentence summary, followed by usage guidance and detailed type breakdown. Every sentence contributes information; no redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but the density of useful content justifies the length.

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 moderate complexity (two entity types, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, return values, and internal behavior. It lacks explicit error handling (e.g., what happens if an entity is not found), but this is a minor omission. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with basic param descriptions. The tool description significantly enriches both parameters: for 'type', it lists the exact supported values and what each returns; for 'value', it provides concrete examples and explains accepted input formats (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand/generic for drug). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 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?

The description starts with concrete user queries (ticker, CIK, RxCUI) and clearly states the tool's core function: resolving a name to a canonical identifier needed by other tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing this ID-lookup role, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., entity_profile, compare_entities) implies those are for different purposes.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that the tool 'probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized' and that the output is a 'ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity.' This informs the agent of the internal process and return format. 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a parenthetical example. It front-loads the core action ('Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side') and includes all necessary information without redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-entity comparison, internal use of another tool), the description covers the overall process, input structure, and output format. It does not detail error handling or rate limits, but the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) partially mitigate this. The missing output schema is compensated by the explicit description of return fields. Slightly more detail on failure modes could push this to 5.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it notes that the first entity is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and rest as competitors, and that 'context' disambiguates common names. This provides contextual understanding for 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's purpose: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('AI visibility across entities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single probe) and compare_entities (general comparison) by specifying the competitive audit context.

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 concrete use case: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits: "does Claude know about us as well as our competitors?"' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would improve the score.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. Description adds behavioral insights: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timeouts. 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 dense but effective, front-loading the composite check concept and then detailing the output. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but no wasted sentences.

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 (two sources, partial failures, version details) and lack of output schema, the description fully explains the output fields, failure behavior, and ecosystem limitation. Complete and actionable.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., version default is already in 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?

Description clearly states it's a composite check for npm package evaluation using deps.dev and bundlephobia, specifying the verb (composite check) and resource (npm package). Distinguishes from siblings by noting other ecosystems fall under deps.dev:version directly.

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: when agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding a package. Also specifies NPM only in v1 and directs to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems, providing clear when-not-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 mark the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (platform name, release date, players, rating, short overview), providing behavioral context beyond annotations regarding output content.

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: two sentences and an example. Every part serves a purpose—definition, output description, usage illustration. No redundancy or wasted words.

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

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

Given the rich annotations and complete schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output fields, and usage example. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing return fields. Minor gap: no mention of result ordering or pagination behavior.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds an example with typical values, which aids understanding, but does not deepen semantic meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Search') and the specific resource ('TheGamesDB video-game database by title'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_game by focusing on title-based search across the database.

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 includes an example command, implying typical usage, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to prefer search_games vs get_game or list_platforms). Usage context is only implied.

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

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

Adds significant detail beyond annotations: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag, and that passages include offsets for verification. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose, then examples, use case, and technical details. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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

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

No output schema, but description explains return format (top-N passages with offsets and scores). Covers parameters (3, 2 required), pairing with sibling, and behavioral notes. Fully complete given the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value with natural-language query examples, document text clarification, and cap constraint. Does not fully compensate as schema already descriptive, but adds useful context.

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 performs semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific examples (SEC 10-K, article, long tool result). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by emphasizing it works on already-pulled text and returns passages with offsets.

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 (record too big for prompt), saving context. Mentions pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Does not list alternatives or 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?

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotency (idempotentHint true). Description adds unique details: account requirement, delivery channel behaviors (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable, signing secret), and return of subscription ID. 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?

Structured with colons and dashes to separate concepts, but the single paragraph is dense. Still, it packs useful information concisely given the complexity of subscription types and delivery options.

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

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

Covers return value (subscription ID), prerequisites, delivery mechanisms, and constraints. Lacks full response structure, but no output schema exists; description compensates well.

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 enriches each parameter with concrete examples and constraints (e.g., items codes, SMS verification, webhook signing), adding 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?

Clearly states verb 'create' and resource 'proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream'. Title and description align, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unsubscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Gives clear context by listing requirements (Pipeworx OAuth account) and supported types with examples, but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like 'recent_alerts' for pulling alerts.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the tool returns example questions and tool arguments from a live catalog, and that it can be filtered by topic. 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 informative and front-loaded with key phrases, but it is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, output nature, and when to invoke. No obvious 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains that the optional 'topic' parameter accepts specific values (finance, pharma, etc.) and clarifies the behavior when omitted (returns full cross-category spread). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches the parameter's purpose.

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

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

The description explicitly states that the tool is the onboarding entry point for an agent to discover what Pipeworx can do, returning category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shapes. It clearly differentiates its purpose from sibling tools by specifying that it answers phrases like 'what can you ask Pipeworx?' and is intended for initial exploration.

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 the tool: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you.' It also explains how to use it with or without the topic parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though it implicitly references meta-tools like ask_pipeworx.

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: deactivation instead of deletion, ownership enforcement, and relation to recent_alerts. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words: purpose, constraint, and effect are all present and 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, ownership, and effect. Could optionally mention return value but not essential.

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

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

Schema covers 100% with description 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' Description does not add new parameter info 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 'Cancel a subscription by id' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions.

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

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

Provides ownership constraint ('only cancel your own subscriptions') and explains side effects (deactivation not deletion). Implicitly guides when not to use (if not owner).

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. The description adds valuable behavioral details: return formats (verdict types, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta) and scope limitations (company-financial claims only). 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 front-loaded with natural-language triggers and is well-structured, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, but could be trimmed slightly without losing 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 no output schema, the description explains return values well. It covers input validity and domain restrictions, but misses potential error cases or timeouts. Overall fairly 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?

The single parameter 'claim' is well-described in the schema, and the description adds examples and clarifies the supported claim types (company-financial). This adds meaning beyond the schema's description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool validates natural-language claims against authoritative sources, specifically company-financial claims from SEC EDGAR + XBRL. It uses explicit verbs like 'fact check' and 'verify', and distinguishes from siblings by being a dedicated claim verification tool.

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 says to use it whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness, and specifies the domain (company-financial, public US). It implies but does not explicitly state when not to use it, and no alternatives are named, but the context is clear enough.

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