entity_definitionSingle definition by type + hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| hash_identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by clarifying the operation scope, but no extra behavioral context is required.
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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informativeness. It could be expanded slightly while remaining concise.
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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is borderline adequate for a lookup tool. However, it lacks context about what a 'definition' is and how the hash is used, leaving some ambiguity.
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 coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'type + hash' without explaining their meaning or format beyond the example. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for two non-obvious parameters.
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 'Single definition by type + hash.' clearly states the action (get a single definition) and the resources (type and hash). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'compare_entities' and 'entity_profile' by implying unique retrieval.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. The description implies usage for fetching one definition, but lacks when-not or comparison with siblings like 'resolve_entity' or 'search_within'.
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.
The tool set mixes Destiny 2 game tools with a large suite of general data querying tools from Pipeworx. Within the data querying subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which to use. The Destiny tools are more distinct, but overall, the set has noticeable ambiguity.
Tool names are highly inconsistent, mixing single-word names (character, clan), snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), and compound names with underscores (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). There is no uniform verb_noun or other predictable pattern, making it difficult for an agent to infer functionality from the name alone.
With 43 tools, the server is bloated for its stated name 'Bungie'. Many tools are unrelated to Bungie (e.g., Pipeworx data tools, Polymarket tools), suggesting the server aggregates multiple domains without clear scoping. The tool count is too high for a coherent set focused on a single service.
For the Bungie game domain, the set is fairly complete (characters, clans, stats). However, the inclusion of numerous unrelated tools (financial, economic, prediction market) fragments completeness. The server lacks a clear domain, leaving gaps in both the Bungie-specific and the general data querying aspects when considered as a unified set.