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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently outlines the tool's scope (kinds, rewards/escrow, completion verification) and its read-only explanatory nature via the verb 'explain.' It does not delve into return format or limitations, but for a simple knowledge tool this is sufficient.
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 core purpose and followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or 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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It specifies the topic (Solomon's help contracts/quests), the subtopics (kinds, rewards/escrow, verification), and the trigger question type. There is no missing context that would confuse an agent.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly implies that no arguments are needed. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('Solomon's help contracts and quests') and the aspects covered (kinds, rewards/escrow, completion verification). This distinguishes it from sibling wiki tools that are generic fetch or search operations, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 phrase 'Use for "how do contracts/quests work" questions' provides explicit context for when to select this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to make a correct choice.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (fetch, wiki_get, wiki_rank, wiki_calc, etc.), but search and wiki_search are clearly duplicated full-text search tools, and fetch vs wiki_get could be confused initially. Descriptions help but the overlap is notable.
Naming is inconsistent: 'fetch' and 'search' lack the 'wiki_' prefix used by others, and there is a mix of verb-based (get, rank, calc) and noun-based (bom, contract_basics) names. Having both 'search' and 'wiki_search' for the same functionality is a clear naming violation.
10 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range for a wiki server, covering search, retrieval, analytics, and recipe calculations. However, one tool is essentially redundant (search vs wiki_search), making the count slightly padded.
The tool surface covers the core wiki workflow: search, fetch markdown, read structured facts, rank/aggregate numeric data, and compute recipe-related metrics (BOM, raw materials, exact calc). Minor gaps like listing all entities of a kind without ranking, but overall no dead ends.