xp_curveMake a level-up XP table for an RPG or idle game. Returns XP needed per level and in total, as a table or as ready-to-paste GDScript, C# or JSON. Needs GameShipKit Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | No | exponential | |
| format | No | table | |
| growth | No | Exponential: multiplier per level (1.1 to 1.25 is common). Polynomial: exponent (1.5 to 2.5 is common). | |
| levels | No | ||
| round_to | No | ||
| first_level_xp | No | XP needed to go from level 1 to 2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses the GameShipKit Pro access requirement and describes the returned content and representation choices. It does not cover errors, limits, or precise calculation and rounding behavior, but nothing conflicts with the read-only annotation.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then explain the outputs, and finally state the access prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant procedural wording.
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?
The definition is sufficient for a basic call using the supplied defaults, enums, and ranges, and it usefully summarizes the result because no output schema is provided. However, exact curve formulas, linear-style behavior, rounding semantics, and result structure remain unspecified, leaving gaps for a six-parameter generator with limited schema descriptions.
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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does little to fill that gap: it adds no guidance for style, growth, levels, round_to, or first_level_xp. Its discussion of table, GDScript, C#, and JSON mostly restates the format enum, although ready-to-paste output and the per-level/total explanation add some meaning.
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 gives a specific action and resource: creating a level-up XP table for RPG or idle games, containing per-level and cumulative XP. The supported output formats make its role concrete and clearly distinguish it from the unrelated sibling 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 RPG/idle-game context and ready-to-paste code options provide clear situations in which to use it, while the Pro requirement establishes a prerequisite. It does not state when not to use it or identify an alternative, so it stops short of explicit comparative routing.
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.