Tldr Pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the default model (free) and that Anthropic probing requires a BYO API key with direct payment. It does not contradict annotations.

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core action and output, then details on models, and finally use cases. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the per-model return structure ({score, confidence, signals, raw_response}) and combined view. It covers all parameters and gives practical examples in the entity description. Complete for a probing tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the default model, the role of _apiKey for Anthropic, and that context helps disambiguate entities. This adds meaningful guidance.

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 a visibility score. It specifies the resource (business/brand/product/topic) and output format, distinguishing it from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' which is Pipeworx-specific or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which likely scans competitors.

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 use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) implying when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use but provides enough context to differentiate from sibling tools.

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

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

Discloses beyond annotations: it routes to 4,552 tools across 1160 sources, fills arguments, returns structured answer with stable citation URIs, works on every tier, one fast call. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.). The description adds context about the scale and nature of the tool, which annotations alone don't 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?

Well-structured with clear priority statement upfront, then behavior, usage guidelines, and alternatives. Could be slightly more concise (e.g., the list of domains like 'SEC filings, FDA drug data' is long but still informative). Front-loaded and logical.

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 (4,552 tools, many domains, no output schema), the description fully covers what it does, when to use, and alternatives. It mentions the return format (structured answer with citations). The context signals show many parameters but all are aliases; description clarifies that the single 'question' parameter is sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description lists examples of questions but does not add meaning beyond schema's aliases. Schema already documents all parameters as aliases for 'question'. The examples are helpful but not essential. No additional parameter details.

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 routes questions to a large set of verified sources and returns structured answers with citations. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). The verb 'routes' and resource '4,552 tools across 1160 sources' are specific.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use (factual questions about real-world entities/numbers, prefers over web search) and when not to use (for hallucination-resistant single answer use ask_pipeworx_grounded, for broad/multi-part use deep_research). Provides examples like 'current US unemployment rate'. This is comprehensive guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the routing through 4,552 tools, the extraction-only-from-result behavior, the structured refusal reasons, and the cost increase. 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 somewhat long but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, explains the workflow, details the return format, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information; however, some redundancy could be trimmed for maximum conciseness.

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

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

Given the rich annotations and clear schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it explains the grounded extraction process, lists all possible refusal reasons, and specifies the return fields. Although no output schema exists, the description adequately covers the response structure, making the tool self-contained for the agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters clearly described as aliases for 'question.' The description adds minimal value beyond stating 'Your question in natural language,' which is already implied by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool ask_pipeworx by explaining the grounded extraction process. The specific examples of use cases (financial verdicts, legal claims, etc.) further clarify its role.

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 on when to use this tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when to prefer the alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It also mentions the cost trade-off (one extra LLM call), giving the agent 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 discloses extensive behavioral traits beyond annotations. It details the resolution process, classifier system, fan-out logic, safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuit, closed market handling), response shapes (market, analysis, evidence fields), and resolution-rule risk. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds context like 'low-confidence resolutions short-circuit with status:"low_confidence_match" and suppress analysis fields' and 'wide-spread markets (>10pp) carry tradeability:"illiquid_wide_spread".' 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 structured with clear sections (classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, resolver contract, etc.) and uses bullet-like formatting. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, then details specifics. While every sentence adds value, the length reduces conciseness. However, given the tool's complexity, the structure is 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?

The description is exceptionally complete for a complex tool. It covers all aspects: input handling, classifier list, fan-out examples for various bet types, response shape details (market fields, analysis with edge calculation, evidence sources), resolver confidence mechanics, parent event extraction, news field fallbacks, safety behaviors, and resolution-rule risk. No output schema exists, but the description compensates fully.

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 description adds meaning beyond property definitions. It explains the 'market' parameter can be a slug, URL, or question text with examples. It clarifies 'depth' enum values ('quick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out') and 'include_raw' effect (summarized vs full payloads). It also provides context like default values and recommendations (e.g., 'Default false. When false... summarized to the few fields agents actually use').

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: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It provides specific use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bet research with data fan-out. The verb 'Research' and resource 'Polymarket bet' are specific, and the description details the resolution, classification, and fan-out process, making it unique among 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It provides guidance on input formats (slug, URL, question text), classifier categories, and fan-out examples. It also advises inspecting resolution confidence before trusting analysis, giving clear when-to and when-not-to use instructions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the annotations, which is acceptable but not enhanced.

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

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

Extremely concise (two words), but under-specified. The brevity sacrifices clarity and usefulness, especially given the lack of parameter explanations.

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 2 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not hint at filtering, output structure (even though output schema exists), or the scope of commands listed.

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 0%, yet the description does not compensate by explaining the two parameters (language, platform) or their expected values. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare property 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?

Description 'List commands' is nearly a tautology of the tool name 'commands'. It lacks specificity about which commands (system, tool, or other) are listed, and does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description provides no context for appropriate invocation.

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

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

Annotations indicate safe read-only operations. The description adds deep behavioral detail: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), specific metrics (revenue, net income, etc.), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and result sorting. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently packs all necessary information. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded query examples quickly convey purpose.

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

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

Given the complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources), the description covers data sources, metrics, sorting, return format (paired data + citations), and edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains return values.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds concrete examples (tickers, drug names) and explains how each type maps to data sources, going beyond the schema's enum 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 uses specific verbs like 'compare', 'side-by-side comparison', and explicitly states the tool handles 2–5 entities in one call. It distinguishes from siblings by advocating preference over sequential lookups.

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

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

The description provides clear query examples and explicitly prefers this over sequential single-pack lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative sibling tools for single lookups.

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

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that it's not open-web search, returns empty gaps when data unavailable, expects 15-60s, and requires authentication. 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 and front-loaded with critical prerequisite (account). All sentences add value, but slightly long; could be more concise.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return format (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, etc.), auth, performance, and limitations. 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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: depth enum values explained (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and question parameter described as accepting broad/multi-part natural language.

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 performs grounded multi-source research across structured data, decomposing questions and running parallel tool calls. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx and specifies when to use each.

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 provides when-to-use (broad/multi-part structured questions) and when-not-to-use (single lookups, breaking news, colloquial topics), with specific alternative tools named. Also notes account and plan requirements.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples) — each result is ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed', which provides 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 a single paragraph but well-structured: purpose, usage guidelines, return value description, and advice on when to call. Every sentence contributes essential 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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description completely explains input (aliases, limit) and output (tool names, descriptions, schemas, examples). No gaps remain for the agent to infer.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by listing alias parameters (task, q, description, search) and stating default/max for limit, which clarifies usage beyond the schema alone.

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 begins with 'Find tools by describing the data or task' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'search_within' by focusing on tool discovery rather than data retrieval. Examples provided reinforce 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?

Explicitly states 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for: ...' and includes specific domains. Moreover, it advises 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer)', providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds details: fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields, mentions patent soft-fail, and parallel call 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?

The description is dense and informative but could benefit from more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points). It is not overly verbose, but a slight improvement in readability would make it ideal.

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?

Provides a thorough explanation of return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI) and their details, despite no output schema. Also covers edge cases like patent soft-fail and input restrictions.

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 context: type only 'company', value must be ticker or zero-padded CIK, names not supported. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call' and lists specific data sources and outputs. It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_entity.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack... lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and advises to use resolve_entity if only a name is available. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to instructions.

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

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

Description confirms destructive nature (delete) aligning with destructiveHint. Adds context about clearing sensitive data, which is beyond annotation hints.

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 action. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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

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

Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). Description covers purpose, usage, and context. Complete for its 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 covers 100% parameters with description for 'key'. Description adds no extra parameter meaning, consistent with baseline for high 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?

Description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools '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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: stale context, task done, clear sensitive data. Recommends pairing with related tools, giving clear guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown, and outputs a text blob ready for deployment. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, process explanation, and usage examples. It is slightly verbose but front-loaded with key information. Each sentence adds value.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, process, output format, and use cases. Nothing essential is missing.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on llms.txt generation, a unique capability.

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

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

The description lists explicit use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like scan_competitor_ai_presence. However, the context is clear enough for agent selection.

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 and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specificity about return fields and scope ('caller's'), which is helpful but not critical 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear structure.

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

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

Given a simple single optional parameter with good schema documentation and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, return fields, usage context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'include_inactive'. The description does not add extra 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the exact return fields. It 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 advises when to use: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Provides clear context and actionable guidance.

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

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

Annotations already document read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'tldr page' context, which clarifies the output style. No contradictions exist, and the description provides a slight 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains zero extraneous text, making it highly efficient 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and detailed annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple tool. However, it could briefly mention that the output is a plain-text summary, but the combination of schema and annotations mitigates this gap.

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 67% (language and platform have descriptions). The description does not add extra meaning for parameters, relying on the schema. The 'command' parameter lacks a description, and the tool description does not compensate. Score reflects baseline adjusted for partial 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 specifies 'Render tldr page' with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'commands' or 'platforms' by focusing on a simplified command summary.

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

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

The description implies usage for getting a concise command summary but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. With no sibling tool serving the same purpose, the context is clear but not articulated.

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

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

The description discloses rate-limiting (5 per day), that it's free, and doesn't count against quota. It also notes the team reads digests daily and signal affects roadmap. There are no contradictions with annotations, which are all 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 concise with 5 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes all necessary 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 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides complete guidance: usage, behavioral notes, and parameter semantics. It is sufficient 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining how to write the message (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), clarifying the enum values, and noting that context is optional. Schema coverage is 100% but description enhances usability.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is for sending feedback to the Pipeworx team, specifying verb 'Send' and resource 'Pipeworx Feedback'. It distinguishes from siblings as it is the only feedback tool among many search and query tools.

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

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

The description explicitly lists when to use it (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and provides specific guidance on how to describe issues. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling list makes alternatives clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data is self-aggregating from CF analytics-engine, no PII, and cached 5min-1h. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about data freshness and privacy.

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: a lead sentence stating purpose, then bullet-point use cases, and a final technical note. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so adequately: 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume' with data format (pack, tool, count). Caching and derivation are covered. Slightly lacking explicit structure of results, but sufficient for a simple 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?

The schema covers the single parameter fully with enum values and a description. The tool description mentions the window and purpose but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 what the tool does: 'Returns the top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window'. The verb 'returns' and the specific resource (trending calls from other AI agents) are well-defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by focusing on aggregate usage trends rather than specific answers or search results.

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: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, and seeing alignment of use cases. While it does not list when not to use the tool, the use cases are clear and contextually appropriate. It implies alternatives exist but does not name them directly.

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), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('supported' implies dynamic or vetted list), but does not contradict annotations.

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

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

The description is three words, perfectly concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information. Every word earns its place.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, low complexity) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. However, a brief note on what 'platforms' refer to could enhance completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none is needed; baseline for zero parameters is 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 action ('List') and resource ('supported platforms'), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'platform,' and there is no differentiation from siblings, though no direct sibling overlaps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is simple, but the description fails to indicate usage context.

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds critical behavioral details: fill check against live CLOB depth, semantic anchor requiring 0.30 Jaccard similarity, partition filter for placeholder slugs, and explicit 'do not trade' guidance when realizable edge ≤ 0. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is lengthy but well-structured: purpose, mode overview, per-mode details, then fill check. Every sentence adds necessary context for a complex tool. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeated references to partition_check), but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (opportunities[] with fields), fill check conditions, edge cases (placeholder slugs, low similarity), and references a sibling tool. It covers all aspects needed for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the tool description provides concrete examples (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026'), explains the partition check, semantic anchor for topic mode, and the difference between event and topic modes, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (trending_scan, event, topic) and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance: no args for trending scan, event for single-market analysis (recommended), topic for cross-event scanning. It explains when cross-event is beneficial and directs users to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing, effectively differentiating from alternatives.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations, detailing three model families (crypto_price, news_momentum, structural_arbitrage, concentrated_longshot), response segments, diagnostics, caching at KV level, and specific behavioral traits like slippage subtraction and Kelly fraction capping. No contradiction with readOnlyHint etc.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then details model families, response structure, and parameters. It front-loads the key idea. While some detail (e.g., exact α values) might be trimmed, every sentence adds useful context 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, three model families, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response structure in detail (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics) and compensates for missing output schema by listing fields. Annotations cover safety.

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 value by grouping parameters into 'tradeable-edge knobs' and explaining their role in the pipeline (e.g., min_liquidity and max_spread_pp as filters). It also contextualizes parameters like min_partition_leg_kelly in relation to partition arbs.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It specifies the resource (Polymarket), the action (scan and return edges), and the unique value proposition. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and bet_research by focusing on Pipeworx-based edge detection.

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

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

The description explicitly frames the tool for 'what should I bet on today' and mentions it discovers opportunities without paging hundreds of markets. It provides context about Fed bets and diagnostics. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, 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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: daily snapshot usage, time-series returns, trend computation, decay rates, expired opportunities, and data gaps. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is dense and informative but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the purpose but includes many technical details. Could be slightly more concise while retaining 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and limitations (60-day TTL, daily snapshots). All necessary context for a read-only query tool is provided.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description reinforces default values and provides context for 'window' as snapshot family. A minor inconsistency exists (description says 'max 30', schema says 'clamp 2-30'), but overall adds limited value beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots, answering a specific question about edge age and shrinkage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on historical trends.

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 differentiate fresh vs. old edges) and details the output structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and limitations (60-day TTL). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is sufficiently specific.

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, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond these: it explains the two operational modes, parameter requirements, return fields (e.g., top_of_book, slippage_pp, verdict), and risks like thin books and forced directional risk. 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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose, uses capitalization for key points, and covers both modes systematically. It could be slightly tighter, but given the tool's complexity, the length is justified.

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 is complete despite lacking an output schema: it enumerates all return fields for both modes, covers edge cases (thin legs, partial fills, forced directional risk), and mentions default values and constraints. It provides enough context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial semantics: it explains how size_usd interpretation differs between modes (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and how side defaults are derived in basket mode. This adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket) and explicitly tells when to use it relative to sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage context: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains the risk of partial fills converting an arb into an unhedged direction. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough.

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

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

Builds on annotations by detailing compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, skipped cross types, and the rarity of actual tradeable spreads. No contradiction.

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

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

Description is thorough but somewhat verbose; includes detailed field explanations that could be condensed. Still front-loaded with key 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?

Covers all essential aspects for a complex tool: modes, output structure, safety fields, limitations. No output schema exists, so description effectively substitutes.

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 100%, and description adds value by explaining mode behavior, topic list, and override logic. Slightly beyond 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 clearly states cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket. Distinguished from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by naming the specific dual-venue comparison. Provides specific verbs and modes.

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

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

Explicitly specifies two modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit tickers) and when to use each. Warns that most topics return compatibility warnings, guiding appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of listing all keys when the key argument is omitted, and scoping to an identifier. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is concise (3 sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return behavior (value or list of keys), usage context, and scoping. It covers all essential aspects for a simple read tool, making it 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%, and the schema already describes the key parameter with 'omit to list all keys'. The description repeats this information, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument).' It specifies the action (retrieve/list) and resource (stored values/keys), and distinguishes from sibling tools '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 explains when to use: 'to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' It mentions scoping and pairing with remember/forget. Missing explicit 'when not to use', but the context is clear enough.

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

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the effect of mark_read (flags events as read, affecting subsequent calls) and mentions the typical fields in the response. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, and the description aligns 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 concise and well-structured: a single paragraph that starts with the main action, lists key fields, then details filtering and side effects. Every sentence adds value, and the alternative endpoint mention is an efficient addition.

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

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and parameters. It covers behavior (mark_read effect) and provides an external reference. A minor gap: it does not mention the default limit or maximum, but the schema covers limit details.

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 examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type, ISO timestamp for since) but does not significantly expand on the schema descriptions. It provides context but not critical new information.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' and specifies the fields returned (source, citation_uri, raw event payload). It distinguishes itself from siblings by its specific focus on alerts and mentions an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards.

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 fetch recent alerts) and provides filtering options (type, since). It also mentions an alternative access method (GET endpoint) and notes that polling works fine, offering practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to similar 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?

The description details the tool's behavior: it fans out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback with rate-limiting handling, and USPTO with soft-failure note. It also describes the return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). This adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations.

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

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

The description is detailed and comprehensive, which is necessary given the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with common query examples and uses a structured narrative. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, fallback logic, parameter flexibility) and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: input, behavior, return structure, and caveats. It is complete and actionable.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the tool description adds further meaning: for `since`, it explains ISO date and relative shorthand formats and gives typical usage. For `value`, it clarifies ticker or CIK. This enriches the schema definitions.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool's purpose as a change feed for a company in recent time windows, using clear examples like "What's new with X" and "latest on Y". It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool entity_profile by contrasting dynamic vs static profiles.

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

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

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (monitoring recent changes) and when not to (use entity_profile for static profiles). It also advises on the `since` parameter with typical values like "30d" or "1m".

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 useful behavioral context beyond annotations: scoping by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs. anonymous users (24-hour retention). Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so 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?

Four sentences front-load the purpose, each sentence adds value. No redundant or wasted words.

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

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

Fully sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, usage, behavior, and relationship to sibling 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds examples of keys and values, which is helpful but not extensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 saves key-value data for reuse across sessions, with specific verb 'Save' and resource 'data'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming recall and forget as associated tools.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: when discovering something worth carrying forward. Also mentions when not to use implicitly by pairing with recall/forget, providing clear context and alternatives.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and the description adds that it cascades through several lookup endpoints internally, and details return fields per type (e.g., CIK + citation URI). 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?

Description is moderately long but well-structured, starting with example queries, then purpose, then supported types with specifics. Slightly verbose but 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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return values for both entity types, including citation URIs. No missing information; the tool's behavior and outputs are adequately explained 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 already describes both parameters, but the description adds significant context: accepted input formats for 'value' (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand/generic for drug) and mentions auto-disambiguation for company names, going 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 resolves names to canonical/official identifiers, lists supported examples (ticker, CIK, RxCUI), and distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities by focusing on ID lookup.

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

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

Explicitly advises 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and mentions it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. Could be improved by noting when to use alternatives like entity_profile, but overall clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool internally probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This goes beyond annotations to describe internal behavior 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool with 4 parameters fully described in schema, the description covers the use case, internal logic, and output format. No significant gaps remain.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the first entity in 'entities' is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, which is not in the schema description. This helps the agent understand parameter semantics beyond raw schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check, ranking, and surfacing most/least recognized. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison).

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

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

The description explains the tool is useful for competitive AI-marketing audits with an example. It implies when to use (multiple entity comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools. However, context signals and sibling names provide additional guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: fan-out across two services, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30 seconds, partial failures degrade gracefully (sources_failed list), and the return structure includes summary, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph but slightly long. However, every sentence is substantive: purpose, usage, limitations, return fields, performance note, fallback behavior. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core value proposition.

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 lists the return summary fields (is_latest, license, published_at, advisory_count, bundle_kb_min, etc.), notes per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions, and explains partial failure behavior. It also covers performance caveats and ecosystem limitations, making it comprehensive for a composite tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: package accepts scoped packages (e.g., '@types/node'), version defaults to latest. It also explains the overall composite purpose, which contextualizes the parameters.

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 verb phrase: 'Composite "should I add this npm package to my project" check in ONE call'. It specifies the resource (npm package) and the action (scanning/checking across two services). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool focused on npm package analysis; no other sibling tool covers this domain.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also clarifies limitations: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.' This provides clear exclusions and redirection.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds 'substring search,' implying exact substring matching. While not contradictory, it lacks details on case sensitivity, pagination, or scope. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word earns its place.

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

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

Despite having an output schema and four parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain the scope of search (all pages?), result format, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search_within'. Incomplete for confident 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'query' parameter (searching titles) but not 'limit', 'language', or 'platform'. Three of four parameters remain undocumented in both schema and 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 'substring search across page titles,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on titles, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'search_within'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'search_within' or when not to use it. With many sibling tools, this omission significantly hinders correct selection.

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

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

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

Single paragraph is front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value (usage, technical details, pairing), no fluff.

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

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

Despite lacking output schema, the description explains output format (passages with offsets and scores), embedding details, limits, and pairing with another tool. Fully sufficient 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 practical context for each parameter: text examples (SEC 10-K body), query examples, and limit default. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'search within' and the resource 'a fetched record', with examples like SEC 10-K body. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it works on already-fetched content, not full source search.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use ('when the record is too big to cram into the prompt') and how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing clear decision criteria and alternative usage.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses authentication requirements, delivery channel limits, and the one-time webhook secret. It doesn't explicitly address idempotency or destructive behavior, but these are consistent with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. It is thorough but slightly lengthy; a minor tightening could improve conciseness 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately covers all aspects: required and optional parameters, type-specific details, delivery options, and return values (subscription id and webhook secret). It also addresses prerequisites and limitations, making it 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant value by providing natural language explanations of enum values (e.g., 'sec_8k: 8-K filings matching ticker + item codes') and concrete examples for each type and delivery channel, which is not captured in 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: 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream.' It specifies the resource and explicitly mentions the return value ('Returns the new subscription id'), effectively distinguishing it 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?

The description provides explicit usage context including prerequisites ('Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account') and constraints (e.g., SMS cap of 10/day). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling list makes the niche clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing that the tool returns category-bucketed examples with exact tool+argument shapes, drawn from a live catalog. It also explains the effect of omitting or including the topic parameter, which goes 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 well-structured, starting with common user queries, then explaining the tool's output, and concluding with usage instructions. It is front-loaded with user intent and each sentence contributes useful information, though slightly longer than minimal.

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 explains the return format: category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes. It also covers the behavior with and without the topic parameter, making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose, listing example focus areas and explaining that omitting it yields a full spread. While the schema already describes the parameter, the description adds usage context and clarifies the effect.

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 an onboarding entry point that returns example questions and corresponding tool calls. It uses specific verbs like 'suggest' and 'returns', and differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' by emphasizing exploration over direct querying.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you'. It also explains when to use with or without the topic parameter. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context strongly implies it's for initial discovery, not for answering specific questions.

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 beyond annotations: explains deactivation vs deletion, ownership constraint; annotations indicate non-destructive write, which description supports with specifics.

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 efficient sentences, no redundancy; main action front-loaded, extra details provided without clutter.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), description covers purpose, constraint, behavior, and lifecycle completely.

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

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

Single parameter 'id' with 100% schema coverage; description reiterates purpose but adds that id comes from 'subscribe', slightly enhancing semantic 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?

Description clearly states action ('Cancel a subscription by id') with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings 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?

Specifies ownership enforcement ('only cancel your own subscriptions') and lifecycle context ('deactivated, not deleted'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it describes the return format (verdict types, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta) and explains that it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, providing transparency about efficiency.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph but is information-dense, front-loading with example queries and clearly stating purpose, scope, return details, and benefits. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and its scope limitation. Annotations cover safety, and the description adds all necessary behavioral and semantic context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the property 'claim' already includes a description with examples. The overall description enriches this by providing more context about the types of claims supported and the expected format, going beyond the schema definition.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: verifying natural-language claims against authoritative sources, specifically company-financial claims using SEC EDGAR + XBRL. It uses specific verbs like 'validate' and 'verify' and distinguishes from siblings by highlighting that it replaces multiple sequential calls, making it unique among similar tools.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and implies a limitation to company-financial claims. However, it does not explicitly exclude other types of claims or suggest alternative tools, which would improve guidance.

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