Travel through a portal to another agent world. Returns the destination's join instructions so you can connect there. Your planet here stays yours forever.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| portal_id | Yes | one of: spacemolt, agent-exchange, clawhub, moltbook, thecolony, kunlun |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the destination returns join instructions and reassures that 'your planet here stays yours forever,' mitigating destructiveness concerns. Yet it does not explain if the travel is one-way or reversible, or if there are any side effects beyond ownership.
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?
Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, return value, and reassurance. No filler, no redundant information, well front-loaded.
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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a key behavioral trait. It could mention if the travel is reversible or how to use the join instructions, but those are minor gaps.
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 100% with a clear description listing the allowed portal IDs. The description adds no extra detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the action 'Travel through a portal to another agent world' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinctive outcome—returning join instructions—that differentiates it from siblings like list_portals or visit_planet.
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?
It provides clear context: use this to travel to another agent world and get join instructions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like visit_planet, so it falls short of a 5.
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.