professionsProfessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | ||
| lang | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of items returned. | |
| items | No | List of Guild Wars 2 professions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already state (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.). Annotations indicate a safe, read-only operation, but the description fails to describe any additional constraints or behaviors.
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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place; here the single word fails to convey necessary information.
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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description should still explain the tool's purpose and parameter usage. It is completely inadequate for a tool with two un-documented parameters.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meaning, but it does not. It does not mention 'ids' or 'lang' parameters at all.
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 is a single word 'Professions', which is a tautology that restates the tool name. It does not specify any action (e.g., 'list', 'get') or clarify what the tool does with professions.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives.
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.