achievementsFetch Guild Wars 2 achievement details by comma-separated IDs or by page; returns achievement name, description, category, tiers, point rewards, and prerequisites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | ||
| lang | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of items returned. | |
| items | No | List of Guild Wars 2 achievements |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers key behavioral traits. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (name, description, category, tiers, points, prerequisites), providing more detail than the annotations alone. No contradictions are present.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return fields. It wastes no words, though a slight restructuring (e.g., separating modes) could improve readability but is not necessary.
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 (4 optional parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the main usage modes and return values. Minor gaps remain for 'lang' and 'page_size' semantics, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'ids' takes comma-separated IDs and that 'page' is for pagination, but it does not clarify the purpose of 'lang' or 'page_size'. This leaves two parameters undocumented in both schema and description, resulting in a partial explanation only.
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 clearly specifies the action ('Fetch') and resource ('Guild Wars 2 achievement details'), and outlines two modes of operation (by IDs or by page). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools that also retrieve game data (e.g., items, currencies), which prevents a score of 5.
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 implies when to use the tool (to fetch achievements by either IDs or page), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose one mode over the other, nor does it mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used. This is adequate but lacks clear direction for selection among sibling tools.
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 set mixes two unrelated domains (Guild Wars 2 endpoints and a broad Pipeworx data-research suite), and within each there are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical, commerce_prices vs guild_wars_2_item_price vs commerce_listings overlap on Trading Post data, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all route questions to the same source catalog. An agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Names are all snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent pattern: some are bare nouns (achievements, currencies, quaggans, worlds, build), some are verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim, generate_llms_txt), some are ask_* (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and some are compound names (polymarket_kalshi_spread, guild_wars_2_item_price). Minor deviations would be fine, but this is a genuine mix of conventions.
42 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range, and the majority are unrelated to the 'Guild Wars 2' server name (only ~11 tools are GW2 API endpoints; the rest are Pipeworx data-research/meta tools). This feels like two or three servers merged into one.
For a Guild Wars 2 server, the coverage is thin: it has items, prices, achievements, worlds, and WvW, but no recipes, guilds, characters, skills, maps, or PvE content. For the broader data-research domain implied by most tools, the surface is sprawling but still lacks depth in several areas. The result is a set that is neither complete for GW2 nor coherently scoped for anything else.