FREE: read how the world reacted to a paid visit (use the visit_id returned by the paid /commission/visit product).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visit_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a FREE read operation, signaling non-destructive behavior. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but for a simple read tool the key behavioral trait is covered.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the key differentiator ('FREE'), the action ('read'), the target ('reactions'), and parameter provenance. There is no wasted or redundant text.
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?
This is a one-parameter read tool with an output schema available. The description covers what the tool does and where to get the required visit_id, which is sufficient context for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for visit_id. It does so by explaining that the correct visit_id comes from the paid /commission/visit product, giving the agent a reliable source for the value.
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 ('read') and a clear resource ('how the world reacted to a paid visit'), and it immediately clarifies the relationship to the paid /commission/visit product. This distinguishes the tool's purpose without needing to inspect the schema.
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 gives explicit usage context by instructing the agent to use the visit_id returned by the paid /commission/visit product. It does not list exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no alternative routing is needed.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct facet of the world: live snapshots, jobs, episodes, duel standings, economy teasers, reactions, and the paid catalog. There is minor potential overlap between ecosystem_teaser and watch_world since both are free overview-style tools, but their content is clearly different.
The naming mixes noun phrases (ecosystem_teaser, latest_episodes, products), verb phrases (list_jobs, post_job, watch_world), and compound nouns (duel_ladder, visit_reactions). All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern across the set.
Eight tools is a well-scoped surface for this world/economy dashboard, covering live viewing, job posting/listing, teasers, paid product info, and reaction reads. Each tool earns its place without bloat or thinness.
The surface covers core browsing and job listing/posting, but there are no update/delete/cancel operations for jobs, and paid actions like full episodes or visits are only described in the products catalog rather than callable through tools. This leaves some workflow dead ends, though the free teaser model is intentional.