forgetDelete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms the destructive nature (delete) but adds no further behavioral details beyond what annotations indicate. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value—no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. Annotations cover the rest.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'key' parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete', so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'previously stored memory by key', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' which store and retrieve memories respectively.
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 when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also suggests pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', effectively directing the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all serve general data querying, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_edge_tracker all target prediction-market opportunities. An agent would struggle to pick the right one consistently despite long descriptions.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), some use a pipeworx_ prefix, some use tradier_ prefix, and some use descriptive phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix pattern across the set.
34 tools is on the heavy side, but more importantly the count does not match the server's stated identity. The server is named Tradier, yet only 3 of 34 tools are Tradier-specific market data tools; the rest are Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities. The scope feels bloated and unfocused.
For a server named Tradier, the surface is severely incomplete: only quote, option expirations, and option chain are provided. Missing are account info, positions, orders, historical data, watchlists, and other core brokerage/trading operations. The Pipeworx research side is broad, but the apparent trading domain has major gaps that would cause agent failures.