auction_statsLatest aggregate monthly stats per online whisky-auction house: mean winning bid, total trading volume, lots count for that house, and the all-auctions total lots count for the month. Aggregates online whisky-auction data; prices are in each house's reporting currency. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max auction-house records to return, newest first (default 25, max 60). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds that the tool is 'keyless' and prices are in reporting currency, but does not disclose behavior beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the most important information (the data returned), and every word adds value. No 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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key output fields and currency. It could clarify the time period (e.g., last 12 months) but is adequate 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'limit' parameter documented. The description does not elaborate on the parameter or its effect beyond what the schema already provides, so no additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool aggregates monthly stats per online whisky-auction house, listing specific fields (mean winning bid, total trading volume, lots count). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like distillery_prices which focus on distillery-level data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving monthly auction house statistics but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., distillery_prices). No context for when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all perform research; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker are similar). Agents may struggle to pick the correct tool.
Naming is inconsistent: some use snake_case (list_distilleries), others are descriptive (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), and some are branded (pipeworx_feedback). No clear pattern.
33 tools is high but not unreasonable given the broad scope. However, the server name implies a whisky focus, making the count feel excessive for that domain.
For the whisky domain suggested by the name, only 3 tools are relevant. The rest are generic or unrelated (Polymarket, npm scanning), leaving significant gaps for whisky-specific tasks.