escape_stringEscape a string. format = "js" (\uXXXX), "html" (&#xNN;), "url" (percent-encoding), or "all-nonascii" (js-escape only non-ASCII). Keyless, offline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to escape. | |
| format | No | js | html | url | all-nonascii (default js). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds 'Keyless, offline' which confirms no network requests or side effects, and describes format options. 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 extremely concise: one sentence followed by format details. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with 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?
For a simple utility tool, the description covers purpose, all format options, and key traits (keyless, offline). No output schema needed; completeness is high.
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 parameter descriptions. The description adds further clarity by explaining each format option (js, html, url, all-nonascii) and their escaping patterns, which is 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Escape' and resource 'a string', which is unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'unescape_string' by implying the opposite operation, and the format options 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?
The description mentions 'Keyless, offline' which hints at no external dependencies, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives like 'unescape_string' are not directly compared.
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 overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly the same routing purpose, with the beta variant currently identical to the stable one, and deep_research also overlaps for broad research. However, most other tools have clearly distinct functions, and descriptions provide usage guidance, so ambiguity is moderate.
Most names are snake_case and readable, but patterns vary between verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The pipeworx_ and polymarket_ prefixes are used inconsistently across the set, and the server name 'Unicode' does not align with the tool names.
At 34 tools, the server is overloaded for a focused purpose, especially since only three tools relate to Unicode despite the server name. Many Polymarket and Pipeworx tools could be consolidated, and the count exceeds the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.
The server name claims to be about Unicode, but only char_info, escape_string, and unescape_string cover that domain, missing common operations like normalization, case conversion, and encoding validation. For the broader data-access domain the surface is fairly complete, yet there is no tool to fetch a specific pipeworx:// citation URI, leaving cited records unfetchable within the tool set—an obvious gap relative to the stated capabilities.