list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields and the ability to include inactive subscriptions. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage guidance 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?
The single parameter 'include_inactive' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond noting 'active subscriptions' as default. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates return fields (id, type, params, etc.), distinguishing it 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 using this tool to review subscriptions before adding more or to find an ID to cancel, providing clear context for when to use it.
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.
The tool set mixes USDA food data tools with a large number of unrelated tools (Polymarket betting, AI visibility, npm scanning, etc.), causing significant overlap in purpose. Many tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all perform research/lookups with similar scopes, making it difficult for an agent to select the appropriate tool.
Tool names generally follow a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_foods, search_foods), but there is inconsistency in prefixes (ask_pipeworx vs. pipeworx_feedback vs. polymarket_arbitrage) and some names are long and varied. The naming is readable but not highly predictable.
35 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on USDA Food Data Central. Many tools are unrelated to food (e.g., Polymarket, Kalshi, npm scanning, subscription management), making the server feel bloated and unfocused. A typical food data server would have 5-10 tools.
For the USDA FDC domain, the tool surface is complete: it includes list, search, get, and nutrient retrieval. However, the presence of many unrelated tools dilutes the server's focus. The food-specific operations are well-covered, but the overall server lacks coherence.