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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns specific fields, defaults to active subscriptions, and supports including cancelled ones via the include_inactive parameter. 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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the action and return fields, the second explains when to use the tool. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. Excellent 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?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely complete. It lists the return fields, notes the default filter, and provides usage context. It is slightly lacking in explaining the format of the 'params' field and any pagination, but those are minor given the low 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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (include_inactive), which is already explained in the schema. The description mentions 'active' vs 'inactive' but does not add meaningful syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 lists 'the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscriptions'), and even enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, which are mutation 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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This offers clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all route questions to the same underlying engine, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket_* family also has many closely-related entry points, though descriptions do help differentiate them.
Names consistently use snake_case with descriptive verb-first patterns (ask_, lookup_, scan_, validate_, resolve_, subscribe) and a clear polymarket_ family prefix. Minor inconsistency exists between lookup_city/lookup_zipcode and resolve_entity, and between noun-style names like entity_profile vs verb-style names like compare_entities, but the overall style is predictable.
33 tools is heavy for a single server, and multiple could be consolidated: the ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research largely overlap, and the memory/subscription categories could be collapsed. For a data-platform gateway the breadth is arguably justified, but the visible redundancy makes the surface feel bloated rather than well-scoped.
The core domains are well covered: question answering has multiple modes, entity lookup has resolution and profiling, prediction markets have research/edge/arb/fill-risk coverage, and the memory (remember/recall/forget) and subscription (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts) lifecycles are complete. Minor gaps exist such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI, relying instead on MCP resources.