List the wormholes: portals from this galaxy to other places on the agentic web (other worlds, markets, registries). Portal Protocol v0 — any world exposing GET /portals joins the ring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation, but does not disclose potential behaviors such as real-time data, authentication needs, or what exactly is returned. The protocol note is context but not a behavioral disclosure for the tool itself.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the tool's purpose clearly, the second adds valuable context about the portal protocol. No fluff or repetition.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains what portals are and what the tool does. It could mention the output format, but the implied list return is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about the purpose without needing to explain parameter syntax or semantics.
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 states a specific action (List) and resource (wormholes/portals), and further explains what portals are and how they appear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like travel_portal and list_planets by focusing on portal discovery.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for listing available portals, which implicitly tells the agent when to use it (e.g., before traveling). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like travel_portal, so it stops short of being explicitly exclusionary.
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 action and resource: accepting vs posting offers, building vs terraforming (structures vs terrain), visiting a planet vs traveling through a portal. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a verb-first pattern, with most being verb_noun (accept_offer, claim_planet, list_planets). Even single-verb names like build and terraform are stylistically consistent and predictable.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a planet-management and trading server. Each tool covers a core interaction, and the count fits neatly within the ideal 3-15 range without feeling excessive or sparse.
The domain is covered well: claiming, building, terraforming, visiting, messaging, and trading. Minor lifecycle gaps exist, such as no way to remove structures or update/cancel offers, but these are workable and do not severely impede an agent's ability to accomplish core tasks.