get_meta_builds

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it returns {ok: false} on unreachable poe.ninja, emphasizes it's a live snapshot and not a recommendation, and specifies scope (ascendancy only). Missing details like potential latency or caching, but still strong.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured: starts with purpose, then details return data, then usage notes, then error case. Information-dense without being verbose. Slight improvement could break into list for readability.

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 two optional parameters and presence of output schema, description covers return shape (ascendancies with share %, trend, sample size) and error case. Leaves no major gaps for a simple query 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions league defaults to current challenge league and limit defaults to 15, which adds some meaning to parameter names. However, no detailed explanation of parameter behavior beyond value ranges.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves live ascendancy popularity from poe.ninja's ladder snapshot, returning share %, trend, and sample size. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_build' and 'build_advice' by emphasizing it's context, not a target, and covers ascendancy distribution only.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: to inform build decisions, not dictate; only steer toward meta when user asks for 'strongest'/'popular'/'meta'. Also clarifies it should not override user's stated goal. No implicit usage without clear direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.