historical_statsFetch historical Destiny 2 stats (kills, deaths, KD, wins) for a character or account (character_id=0) filtered by activity modes (comma-separated mode IDs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modes | No | ||
| character_id | No | ||
| membership_type | Yes | ||
| destiny_membership_id | 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral disclosure is limited. It confirms the fetch action but adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or output format). This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details without redundancy. Every part contributes to understanding.
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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality, required parameters, and filtering options. A very minor gap is the lack of explanation for membership_type and destiny_membership_id, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent usage.
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 description explains the purpose of 'modes' (comma-separated mode IDs) and 'character_id' (0 for account), but does not clarify 'membership_type' or 'destiny_membership_id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides partial but incomplete parameter guidance.
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 resource ('historical Destiny 2 stats'), lists examples of stats (kills, deaths, KD, wins), and clarifies that character_id=0 corresponds to an account, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'historical_stats_for_account'.
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 clearly states when to use the tool (fetching stats for a character or account with optional mode filtering) and implies the distinction between character (character_id set) and account (character_id=0). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the sibling name.
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.