Fetch a single Eco wiki page as Markdown. Pass a canonical wiki path such as /wiki/item/iron-bar, /wiki, or an index like /wiki/recipes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Canonical wiki path, e.g. /wiki/item/iron-bar |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is Markdown and gives valid path examples, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error handling. Lacks deeper behavioral context, though the fetch action is inherently read-only.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with examples appended for clarity. Every word earns its place with zero 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output format, and path formats sufficiently. It does not mention edge cases like non-existent pages, but for a basic fetch this is a minor gap.
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 already documents the 'path' parameter with an example. The description adds value by broadening the example set ('/wiki', '/wiki/item/iron-bar', '/wiki/recipes'), indicating that index pages are also valid. This goes beyond the schema's single example.
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 uses a specific verb 'fetch' and identifies the resource 'single Eco wiki page' with output format 'Markdown'. The word 'single' implicitly differentiates it from aggregate siblings like wiki_aggregate or wiki_total_raw.
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?
Provides clear context for fetching a single page and implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Siblings like wiki_get and search are not referenced, leaving usage boundaries to inference.
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.
search and wiki_search both perform full-text search over the Eco wiki and return similar ranked matches, making them easy to confuse. fetch and wiki_get also overlap as page-retrieval tools, though the crafting calculators are clearly differentiated.
Most tools use a wiki_ prefix, but fetch and search break that pattern, and the suffixes are stylistically mixed (wiki_bom, wiki_calc, wiki_total_raw, wiki_contract_basics). The names remain readable and consistently lowercase snake_case, so the inconsistency is moderate rather than chaotic.
Ten tools is a reasonable size for a wiki server covering search, retrieval, structured facts, numeric analysis, and crafting calculations. The count is slightly padded by the duplicate search tools and overlapping retrieval tools, but it is not excessive.
The tool set covers browsing, full-text search, structured entity facts, ranking, aggregation, multiple crafting-depth views, and gameplay mechanics like contracts. There are no obvious read-side dead ends, and write operations are appropriately absent for a wiki reference server.