wvw_matchesCurrent WvW matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| world | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of items returned. | |
| items | No | Current WvW matches |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, etc. Description adds 'current' implying temporal scope, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination or data freshness.
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?
Description is very short (2 words) and front-loaded, but too terse, sacrificing useful detail. Every word earns its place, but more context would be beneficial.
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 1 optional parameter and an output schema, the description fails to explain what data the matches contain (e.g., scores, maps). Output schema may compensate, but description should provide a high-level overview.
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 description does not explain the 'world' parameter. Agent must infer it filters by world ID; no format or default provided.
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?
Description 'Current WvW matches' clearly states the tool returns WvW match data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'worlds' or 'achievements' by focusing on matches, but could be more specific about scope.
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 on when to use vs alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other 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.