Tiingo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safety. The description adds value by detailing the default model, cost implications for Anthropic, and the output format, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 with four sentences, front-loading the main purpose and efficiently covering key details without wasted words. It is well-structured for an AI agent to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains the return format (per-model fields and combined view), use cases, and parameter nuances. The lack of an output schema is compensated by clear output description, making it contextually 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 the default model, the need for _apiKey with Anthropic, and providing examples for the context parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and returns visibility scores. It specifies the output structure and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on multi-model visibility scoring.

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 use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains when to use the _apiKey parameter. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use this tool, missing an opportunity to differentiate from 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, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds valuable context: routes to 4,552 tools across 1,160 sources, returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs. 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?

Well-structured with bold opening directive, then lists use cases, examples, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy. Front-loads key message effectively.

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

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

Given the tool's role as a routing gateway to thousands of sources, the description is remarkably complete: explains purpose, use cases, examples, alternatives, and return format (structured answer with citations). No output schema needed.

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 (including aliases) described. The description provides examples but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. 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 tool routes factual questions to a vast array of authoritative sources, with specific domains listed (SEC filings, FDA, etc.) and examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning ask_pipeworx as the default entry point and naming alternatives for specialized needs.

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 instructs to prefer this over web search for factual questions, provides detailed when-to-use criteria (e.g., 'what is', 'look up'), and specifies step-up situations for ask_pipeworx_grounded (verbatim evidence) and deep_research (multi-part questions). Also notes it works on every tier.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds detailed behavioral traits: returns {answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason} on success, and explicit refusal reasons (e.g., not_in_source, no_tool_match), which goes well beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the key concept and well-structured, though it includes some process details (e.g., routing, fetching) that could be condensed. It remains efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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 fully covers return values, refusal reasons, and use cases. It differentiates effectively from the sibling ask_pipeworx and justifies when to use this over alternatives.

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 documented as aliases for 'question.' The description repeats this alias information but adds no additional semantic meaning or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 as a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' specifying that it extracts answers only from tool results and returns evidence. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing groundedness and refusal behavior.

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

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

The description explicitly guides when to use: 'use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and when not: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' It also notes the cost of an extra LLM call, providing clear decision criteria.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by detailing classifiers, fan-out logic, response shapes, resolver contract, parent_event extractor, news fields with fallback handling, safety short-circuits (low confidence, closed markets), illiquid spread warnings, and resolution-rule risk. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false).

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

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

The description is lengthy but well-structured: core purpose first, followed by parameter guidance, classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, and safety details. Every sentence provides value, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: input handling, classification, fan-out, response structure, safety checks, resolution logic, and edge cases. It is comprehensive enough for an 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%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the three input formats, the depth parameter (quick vs thorough with default), and include_raw (summary vs full payloads). The schema examples provide additional clarity.

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 researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data in one call. It specifies the input types (slug, URL, question text) and the output (evidence packet + market-vs-model comparison). This differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or 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?

Explicit use cases are given: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z"'. It provides category-specific fan-out examples, helping the agent decide when to use it. However, no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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 this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: for 'company' it pulls specific financial metrics from SEC EDGAR/XBRL with correct fiscal year handling, and for 'drug' it pulls adverse events, approval counts, and trial counts. It also notes sorting by primary metric and return of citation URIs.

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

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

The description is a compact paragraph that efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It front-loads key usage examples and immediately states its purpose, making it easy to scan.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter semantics, and return format. All essential information is present without 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%, but the description adds crucial context beyond the schema: it explains that 'values' should be tickers or CIKs for companies and drug names for drugs, and that the range is 2-5. It also clarifies what 'type' determines in terms of data sourcing.

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 'side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs' and provides clear example queries like 'Compare X and Y' and 'rank these companies'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by recommending it over sequential single-pack lookups, making its purpose unmistakable.

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

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

The description provides direct usage guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It also specifies the valid entity types (company, drug) and the data each pulls, giving clear context on when to invoke this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds that it returns OHLCV data and resample frequency, which is consistent but doesn't add novel behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with an example. 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?

No output schema, but description explains output includes open, high, low, close, volume at a chosen frequency. Adequate for a simple data retrieval tool; lacks mention of data source or pagination but sufficient for typical use.

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% coverage; description includes an example showing ticker and resampleFreq usage but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. 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?

Clearly states it gets crypto prices (OHLCV) for a pair at a chosen frequency. Differentiates from stock-related tools implicitly by mentioning 'crypto', but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'stock_prices'.

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 an example usage but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_prices. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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 readOnly and idempotent, so no safety concern. Description adds critical context: account needed, paid plan for 'thorough', returns findings with evidence gaps, and returns empty gaps for unsuitable topics. 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 comprehensive but somewhat lengthy. Front-loaded with crucial account info and alternative. While every sentence adds value, could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 tool complexity (parallel research, account tiers, many sources), description covers prerequisites, behavior, limitations, and return format. No output schema, but findings packet format is described sufficiently.

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. Description adds value by explaining that depth values correspond to facet counts (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and that question is for broad/multi-part queries. Enhances schema without redundancy.

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

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

Clearly states it performs grounded multi-source research across 1160 structured data sources, decomposes questions into facets, and routes to 4552 tools in parallel. Distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by contrasting research vs single lookup and single LLM call.

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 (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not (breaking news, single lookup). Provides alternative ask_pipeworx for those cases. Also mentions account requirements and plan levels.

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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds value by explaining return structure: 'Returns the top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas... ready to call directly'.

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, well-structured paragraph that is front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 discovery tool: it covers what it searches, how many results, format, and its place as the first step. No output schema needed as description adequately explains return.

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 3. Description adds value by explaining that query accepts aliases (task, q, description, search) and providing examples, making parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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 that this tool finds tools by describing data or task, and lists numerous domains. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set'.

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 usage guidelines: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for' and 'Call this FIRST...' provides clear when-to-use and implies 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 value by detailing internal fan-out across SEC, XBRL, USPTO, GDELT, GLEIF, noting the USPTO sunset date and the GDELT→GNews fallback. It also specifies returned fields like cik, recent_filings with URIs, and fundamentals. 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 around 100 words, starting with examples, then capabilities, then parameter details. While efficient, the list of returned data could be slightly more compact. 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?

With no output schema, the description explains what is returned (cik, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and enough detail for a profile tool. It could improve by noting the number of results or format, but it's adequate.

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%. The description exactly matches: 'Pass ticker "AAPL" or zero-padded CIK...' for the value parameter, and clarifies the type parameter is only 'company'. This adds concrete examples 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 opens with query examples like 'Tell me about X' and clearly states it provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.'

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

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

The description gives explicit 'when to use' guidance ('ALWAYS PREFER over chaining...') and 'when not to use' ('names not supported — use resolve_entity first'), including an alternative tool name.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description confirms deletion but adds no extra behavioral context beyond that.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, full annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It also mentions pairing with related tools.

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 description for 'key' parameter. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a previously stored memory'), and the method ('by key'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall'.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and pairs with related tools ('remember' and 'recall').

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-modifying behavior. The description adds that the tool fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown. This goes beyond annotations to clarify the process and output format.

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 clear sentences plus a bulleted list of use cases, front-loading the key action. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter; still well-structured for an AI agent.

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

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains input (URL), optional limit, process (fetch, extract, emit), and output format (single text blob, llms.txt). No gaps given the low 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 description coverage is 100% (both 'url' and 'max_links' have descriptions). The description adds example URL format but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, using specific verbs like 'generate' and 'fetch'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on the output file format and AI crawler indexing.

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

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

The description lists three explicit use cases (client indexing, personal drafts, competitor auditing) and mentions the output is ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but the context is clear enough for the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description is consistent and adds no new behavioral traits; it simply confirms the read-only nature. No contradictions.

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

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

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by usage guidance. No superfluous words.

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

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

The description fully covers purpose, return structure, and usage context. No output schema exists, but the description lists return fields adequately. For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, this is complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described optional boolean parameter. The description adds no extra parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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?

Verb 'List' clearly identifies this as a read operation on subscriptions. Description specifies return fields (id, type, params, timestamps, fire_count) and distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'before adding more' and 'to find an id to cancel'. This guides the agent to use this tool before calling subscribe or unsubscribe, adding strategic 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 true and destructiveHint false, so safety is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (title, description, URL, etc.) and providing an example call, which fills in behavioral details not covered by 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, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: main action, return fields, and usage illustration. Front-loaded with the core 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (title, description, URL, published date, source, related tickers). It also covers optional filters and provides a limit example. For a simple read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, this is 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 meaning by providing a concrete example (tickers: 'aapl,msft', limit: 10) and clarifying that all parameters are optional filters. This helps the agent understand real 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 retrieves recent financial news articles, optionally filtered by tickers or tags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_prices or crypto_prices by focusing on news content rather than price data.

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 by showing an example and mentioning optional filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_prices or entity_profile. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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 the tool is not read-only or destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, no impact on tool-call quota, and that the team reads digests daily. This provides clear expectations for the agent.

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

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

The description is concise (5 sentences) and well-structured, starting with a clear verb-phrase and then providing usage, constraints, and an important note about not pasting prompts. 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, how to structure feedback, behavioral constraints (rate limit, quota), and audience impact. It is complete for this simple feedback 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 detailed descriptions. The description reinforces the enum options and usage, adding context beyond the schema (e.g., mapping types to specific scenarios). This helps an agent choose the correct parameter values.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, missing features, or praise. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are primarily query or information retrieval tools, making its unique role obvious.

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

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

The description explicitly lists when to use the tool for each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides actionable guidance on how to phrase the feedback, including what to avoid (e.g., not pasting the end-user's prompt).

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 context beyond annotations: it explains that data is self-aggregating, derived from analytics, contains no PII, and is cached for 5min-1h. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, giving the agent full understanding of the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the core functionality, followed by bullet-pointed use cases, and a final sentence about data sourcing and caching. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Given the single optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (top tools, top packs, total call volume), its caching behavior, and data source. There is no need for additional output schema explanation.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already describes the window parameter's enum and default. The description adds extra semantics by explaining that shorter windows show 'what's hot right now' and longer windows show 'steady-state demand,' enhancing the agent's understanding of parameter impact.

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 returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a window, with specific use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool, aligning use case). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' or 'ask_pipeworx' 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 provides three explicit use cases and mentions that shorter windows surface hot trends while longer windows show steady-state demand. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternative sibling tools for specific queries, which would strengthen guidance.

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral details: it explains partition_check, monotonicity, fill check, Jaccard similarity threshold (>=0.30), partition filter dropping certain slugs, and that realizable_edge_pp <= 0 means don't trade. 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 long but well-structured: intro, mode details, sub-details on filters and fill check. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose in the fill check section, but overall efficient.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description explains the response structure (opportunities[] and partition_check fields). It covers modes, algorithms, filters, and refers to another tool for sizing. Complete for a complex tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: examples of event slugs and topic queries, explains mode differences, and clarifies that full URLs are accepted. This goes 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 finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) and specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'Polymarket markets'. This is specific and helps differentiate from siblings.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance: call with no args for trending scan, pass event for specific market, pass topic for cross-event scan. It recommends event mode for specific markets and refers to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_edges.

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 extensive behavioral details: three model families with formulas, caching at KV level for 1h, exclusion of Fed candidates from ranking, and inclusion of diagnostic info to explain empty results. 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 front-loaded with a clear purpose but becomes verbose with detailed model breakdowns, formulas, and parameter explanations. While all information is useful, it could be more structured or summarized. The length may hinder quick reading for an AI.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and detailed internal logic, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all three response segments, diagnostic fields, caching behavior, edge calculation details, and tradeable-edge knobs. The agent gets a full picture of what to expect.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds some extra context like 'tradeable-edge knobs' and explains the interaction of min_kelly and min_partition_leg_kelly, but the core meaning is already in the schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage 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?

Clearly states the tool scans Polymarket markets to find opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market prices. It specifies the use case 'what should I bet on today' and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on data disagreement and eliminating the need to page through hundreds of markets.

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 context for when to use (discovering betting opportunities) and mentions tradeable-edge knobs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like polymarket_arbitrage for arbitrage-specific tasks. The guideline is implied rather than direct.

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. The description adds details about snapshot behavior, gaps, and response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), providing transparency beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured: purpose, response format, arguments, limits. It is informative but slightly long; however, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but 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 no output schema, the description thoroughly details the response (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and limitations. Covers all needed context for an agent to use 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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description restates them with slight context (e.g., 'snapshot family' for window), but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers a specific question about edge longevity, distinguishing it from siblings like polymarket_edges which might provide raw edge data.

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 understand if an edge is shrinking or persistent. It provides context with the example of fresh vs. old wide edges. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it details walking the order book ladder, returning specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, etc.), and warns about forced_directional_risk. 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 lengthy (multiple sentences, some quite dense) but front-loaded with the core purpose. While every detail is arguably relevant, it could be more concise. The structure is clear with bolded mode distinctions, but the overall length suggests room for trimming without losing essential 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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values for both modes, including specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, etc.), and addresses edge cases like partial fills and directional risk. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's 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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains default values (size_usd=1000, side default), range clamp (10-1,000,000), mode logic (single-market vs basket based on which parameter provided), and how side is auto-determined in basket mode. This enriches the schema's parameter 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 core function: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, stating when to use this tool before acting on those signals.

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 this tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains the rationale about theoretical overround not being capturable and partial fills causing directional risk. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or list alternatives beyond the mentioned 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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) are complemented by extensive behavioral disclosure: compatibility_warning conditions, temporal alignment, skipped cross-type/subtype counters, and the fact that spreads are meaningful only under specific conditions. 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?

Well-structured with clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) but verbose. Contains multiple dense paragraphs; some redundancy. Could be tightened without losing 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 core functionality, safety fields, and temporal alignment. Lacks explicit handling when both topic and explicit IDs are provided. No output schema, but description partially explains response structure. Minor gaps for a complex tool.

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

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

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the two modes, override behavior, and giving concrete examples (e.g., 'fed', 'btc'). Slight over-repetition of schema info, but overall helpful.

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

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

Clearly states it computes cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. Distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) by focusing on cross-venue comparison. Two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit event IDs) are explicitly described.

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?

Explains when to use topic mode vs explicit mode. Warns that most pre-mapped topics currently return compatibility_warning, setting appropriate expectations. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage, but context is clear enough for common use cases.

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 value by explaining scoping (anonymous IP, key hash, account ID) and the pairing with remember/forget, which provides context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is three well-structured sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, scope, and relationships with other tools.

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 schema already describes the 'key' parameter. The description reiterates that omitting key lists all keys, which adds slight clarity over the schema but does not provide additional semantic depth.

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 values saved via 'remember' or lists all keys. The verb is specific ('retrieve'/'list') and the resource is defined as memory context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'forget'.

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

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

The description explicitly explains when to use the tool: to look up context stored earlier without re-deriving. It mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'forget', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives beyond the direct 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?

Description contradicts readOnlyHint annotation by describing mark_read:true as a state-changing side effect (flagging events as read). This is a serious inconsistency, so score is 1 per instructions.

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 paragraph with front-loaded purpose, then output details, filtering, mark_read behavior, and alternative endpoint. No fluff, but could be slightly more compact.

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?

Explains return fields, filtering, mark_read effect, and provides alternative access. Lacks discussion of pagination or error handling, but overall adequate for a tool with a schema covering all parameters.

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; description adds value by providing example filter values (e.g., 'sec_8k') and explaining the effect of mark_read, though limit and unread_only are not elaborated.

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 pulls fired events from a subscription feed, specifies output fields (source, citation_uri, raw event payload), and distinguishes it from siblings (no other tool returns alerts).

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 clear guidance on filtering by type and timestamp, explains mark_read behavior, and mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint. Lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons 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?

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds concrete details: fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO patents with sunset note, and output format with citations. No contradictions.

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

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

Single paragraph, front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence adds value: purpose, sources, parameter hints, output shape, and sibling distinction. No redundant text.

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 explains return format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). Covers all necessary aspects for correct invocation given tool 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%. Description adds extra usage guidance for 'since' (typical monitoring values) and clarifies 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. This beyond-schema information justifies a score above baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a 'change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months' using a single parallel call. It uses specific verbs and resources, and contrasts with the sibling tool 'entity_profile'.

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 this tool (for recent changes) and when to use 'entity_profile' (for static profile). Also mentions the fallback mechanism and parameter tips like 'Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring'.

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 context beyond annotations: scoped by identifier, persistent for authenticated users, 24-hour retention for anonymous. It does not mention overwrite behavior or limits, but the annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, making this sufficient.

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, all front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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

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

For a simple key-value storage tool with two required params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, persistence, and sibling integration. Minor details like key uniqueness or storage limits could improve it, but it is largely complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for key and value. The description adds example patterns for keys and clarifies that value can be any text, which enriches understanding 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 saves data for reuse later, using a key-value store. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming recall and forget, making its unique role evident.

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 advises using the tool when discovering information worth carrying forward, providing clear context. It mentions persistence differences between authenticated and anonymous users, and pairs with recall/forget, though it could be more explicit about 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint all true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, auto-disambiguates company names, and returns citation URIs. This fully explains the behavior beyond 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?

The description is relatively long but every sentence adds value. It opens with examples to immediately signal purpose, follows with a direct usage instruction, then details types and outputs. Could be slightly tighter, but structure is logical 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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure for each type, including identifiers, names, and citation URIs, plus notes internal cascading. It does not specify the exact JSON format, but for a resolution tool this is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or case sensitivity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description enriches both parameters: it explains that 'type' enum restricts to 'company' or 'drug', and for 'value' it details acceptable inputs per type (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand or generic for drug) and mentions auto-disambiguation for company names.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs like 'resolve' and gives concrete examples ('What's the ticker for...'). It clearly states the tool maps names to canonical identifiers needed by other tools, and explicitly distinguishes by saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' This strongly separates it from sibling tools that operate on already-resolved entities.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' providing clear usage context. It gives example queries for each supported type. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for cases where the entity is already resolved. Still, the guidance is strong.

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 safety (readOnly, idempotent). Description adds behavioral details: internal calls to ai_visibility_check, ranking, and output fields (score, confidence, signal density). 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?

Two sentences: first states action, second provides use case and return format. Efficient, no waste, 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return fields (score, confidence, signal density). It omits details like error handling or model selection rules, but is sufficient for agent invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds valuable context: first entity is the 'subject' for narrative, rest are competitors; context is for disambiguation. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check probes, ranking by score, and identifying most/least recognized. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) through the comparative aspect.

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 suggests usage for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example question. It implies comparing multiple entities, distinguishing from single-entity tools, but lacks explicit 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?

Discloses fan-out to two sources, partial failure behavior, and timeout specifics for bundlephobia's first measurement (5-30s). Adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) about latency and graceful degradation.

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

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

Front-loaded with the core summary, followed by use cases, ecosystem scope, and behavior. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words despite covering many details.

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 lists all returned fields in detail (summary block with specific fields, advisories, links, alternative versions). Also explains partial failure handling, making the tool fully understandable.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by noting scoped packages are accepted and version defaults to latest, which goes 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 starts with a clear composite purpose: 'should I add this npm package' check in one call. It details exactly what it checks (license, advisories, bundle size, etc.) and the specific verb 'scan_dependency' aligns with the action. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on npm packages and composite analysis.

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: 'whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small or what does adding lodash cost me'. Also clarifies ecosystem limitation: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.' This helps agents choose correctly.

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 behavioral details: embedding model (BGE-base-en), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), and character limit (200K chars with truncation flag). Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are consistent, and the description adds context not in 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?

Description is moderately sized but every sentence serves a purpose: function, use case, pairing, technical details. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core 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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return format (passages with offsets and scores). It also covers usage context, pairing, and technical constraints. Combined with annotations, the agent has full understanding.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the output format (character offsets, similarity scores) beyond what the schema provides. No contradictions.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded and emphasizes that it saves context by returning only relevant passages.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and provides a concrete use case. It also explains how to pair with another tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded) and mentions that returned passages have offsets for verification.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (company name, description, exchange code, date range), which goes beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two sentences and an example, with no wasted words. The key information (verb, resource, return fields) is front-loaded.

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

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

For a simple metadata retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists all relevant return fields (company name, description, exchange code, date range) and provides an example call. It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 baseline is 3. The description provides an example usage with a ticker but does not add additional semantic details beyond the schema descriptions for either parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb (get) and resource (metadata for a stock ticker), listing specific return fields and providing an example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_prices, which focus on price data.

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 the tool (to get metadata for a ticker) but does not mention when not to use it or directly compare with siblings. However, the context of sibling tools implicitly provides differentiation.

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, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable context: default returns latest trading day. No contradictions.

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

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

Two sentences plus an example, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key purpose and fields.

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 data retrieval tool, description covers purpose, default behavior, parameters (via example), and output fields. No output schema, but fields are listed. Complete enough for an agent.

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

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

Schema has 100% description coverage, baseline 3. Description adds value with example usage and clarification of default behavior for start_date. Slightly above baseline.

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

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

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'EOD historical stock prices', lists fields (open, high, low, close, volume, adjClose). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like crypto_prices and stock_metadata.

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 default behavior (latest day without start_date) and provides example. Does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but sibling tools are distinct enough. Could add 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), description adds critical behavioral details: OAuth requirement, delivery-specific constraints, no mention of idempotency conflict but idempotentHint may be contradicted by 'new subscription id'. No direct 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?

Single dense paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though a more structured format (e.g., bullets) could improve readability.

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 complexity (3 params, 5 types, nested delivery object, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: requirements, type-specific details, delivery channels, constraints, and error states. Left no significant 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%, but the description adds significant meaning per parameter beyond schema descriptions: e.g., item codes for sec_8k, verification requirements for sms, webhook auto-disable after failures.

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 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id.' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

Provides extensive usage guidance: requires Pipeworx OAuth account, explains supported types with examples, delivery channels and limitations (phone verification, 10/day SMS cap, webhook auto-disable). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but covers context well.

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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds behavioral context: it returns live catalog examples, explains the output structure (category-bucketed), and mentions the meta-tool learning aspect.

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

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

The description is detailed but front-loaded with common user queries. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise 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 (1 optional param, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect from results.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter. Description adds value by listing concrete valid values (finance, pharma, etc.) and explaining the behavior difference between passing and omitting the topic.

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's the onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shape. It uses specific verbs like 'returns' and 'use this FIRST', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the discovery 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and provides detailed guidance on calling with no arguments vs. passing a topic. This contrasts with sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or entity_profile.

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 valuable context beyond annotations: ownership check, row deactivation vs deletion, and historical availability. No contradiction with annotations (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?

Three concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Purpose, ownership, and effect are front-loaded in logical order.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains behavior (deactivation, not deletion) and links to 'recent_alerts' for historical events. Complete for a simple mutation 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 100% of parameters; description adds 'id returned by subscribe', connecting parameter to prior tool usage. While baseline is 3, the extra context justifies a 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id'. It distinguishes 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?

Explicitly states ownership enforcement ('only cancel your own subscriptions') and clarifies the effect (deactivation, not deletion) with reference to 'recent_alerts' for history.

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=true, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds details on the verdict types (confirmed, refuted, etc.), return structure (value, citation, delta), and data source, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with natural-language examples and concise in explaining the tool's function, scope, and output. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly trimmed.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and a detailed description of output and scope, the tool is fully specified for an agent to understand when and how to use it. The sibling list also provides 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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the only parameter 'claim', the baseline is 3. The description offers example values but does not add significant new 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 verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources, specifically company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL. It distinguishes itself by replacing 4-6 sequential calls and provides example queries that clarify its purpose.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and defines the scope (company-financial claims). It does not list when to avoid or alternative tools, but the scope is clear enough for the agent.

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