Explain how Solomon's help contracts and quests work for players (the kinds available, how rewards/escrow work, how completion is verified). Use for 'how do contracts/quests work' questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The verb 'Explain' implies a read-only, informational operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require any permissions. Since the tool is purely explanatory, this is a minor gap, but more explicit transparency would improve the score.
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, with the first sentence front-loading the tool's purpose and the second providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place; it is concise without unnecessary detail.
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 explanatory tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the topics (kinds available, rewards/escrow, completion verification) and usage context. It could add a note about the format of the explanation or limitations, but it is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.
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 ('Explain') and identifies a clear resource ('Solomon's help contracts and quests'), with details on the topics covered. It is distinct from sibling tools like wiki_get or wiki_search which likely retrieve specific data, while this tool provides conceptual explanations.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for 'how do contracts/quests work' questions.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. It's adequate for guiding selection.
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.