unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond these: ownership enforcement and explicit deactivation rather than deletion. This directly explains the 'destructiveHint' and clarifies the tool's non-destructive nature, adding context that annotations alone do not convey. The description does not contradict any 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by concise behavioral context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the action, the ownership constraint, the deactivation behavior, and the impact on historical events via recent_alerts. Combined with rich annotations, the agent has all necessary context to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already provides a clear description for the 'id' parameter ('Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds the ownership constraint ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), which is semantically relevant to the parameter and not present in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.
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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Cancel a subscription by id.' It specifies the action, the target, and the input mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on cancellation and referencing subscription ownership.
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 indicates when to use this tool ('Cancel a subscription by id') and adds context that ownership is enforced (only your own subscriptions). It also explains the benefit of deactivation rather than deletion, implying use when history retention matters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.
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.