Skip to main content
Glama
cornndawwg

poe2-build-planner

by cornndawwg

Calculate a build with Path of Building

evaluate_build
Read-only

Evaluate a planned Path of Exile 2 build at a character level to get damage, survivability, and resistances, plus a verdict band with weak points and next fixes.

Instructions

Real numbers from Path of Building's calculation engine for a planned build at a character level: damage against normal monsters and against a boss, seconds to kill a normal/rare monster and a boss, hits you survive from monsters and bosses, life, energy shield, resistances (with the campaign's resistance penalty and only the quest rewards earned by that level), Spirit and attributes, plus a verdict band (Comfortable / Workable / Borderline / Not yet) with the weak point and what to fix first. Level 65+ is judged for early maps, T15 and juiced T16 (and pinnacle bosses when that's the goal). With goals (from build_intake) the targets follow the player's purpose and Hardcore, end-game gear follows their budget, and goalCheck says honestly whether the build is on track, rough or not realistic yet for what they want, with options to offer. setupGaps lists what the setup is missing (unused Spirit, no boss skill, no curse/mark/warcry/banner). At level 65+ the assumed rares get resistance mods added to cap resistances, as players do in maps. Damage is broken down into hits, ignite, poison, bleed and minions. By default it assumes budget rare gear for that level (a few mid-roll mods per slot, based on terms and defence), including a budget jewel in each allocated jewel socket; pass items to use specific uniques (by name) or pasted item text in their slots (jewels too), or gear: "none" for no gear. Missing connecting passives are filled in (and listed), and "+5 to any Attribute" passives are spent where the gems and weapon need them. gearTier sets how good the assumed rares are (budget, mid or high). Extras: an amulet anoint and a helmet instill (helmetInstill, via a Raven-Touched Shard), runes, soul cores and idols (socketables), a skill from a Lament/Portent/Absent Amulet with no Spirit cost (amuletSkill), unique flasks and charms (flasks, with flasksActive), and a weaponSwap set with its own weapons, passives and skills. Timeless jewels (Heroic Tragedy, Undying Hate) aren't calculated by Path of Building for PoE2 yet. To compare options side by side, use compare_builds. Numbers are estimates: assumed gear and heuristic bands, not guarantees. Windows only for now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gearNo
avoidNo
classYesClass or ascendancy name
goalsNoThe player's goals from build_intake: stricter targets, an honest goalCheck, and budget-matched end-game gear
itemsNoSpecific items; each replaces the assumed item in its slot. Jewels go in the tree's allocated jewel sockets.
levelYes
termsNoWhat the build scales, for the assumed gear (as for stat_priorities)
anointNoNotable to anoint on the amulet (Liquid Emotions), e.g. "Potent Incantation"
flasksNoUnique flasks and charms by name (or item text); plain life/mana flasks are assumed otherwise
skillsYes
defenceNoDefence layers for the assumed gear (default: life)
weaponsNoWeapon item classes to assume, e.g. ["Staff"], ["Wand", "Focus"], ["One Hand Mace", "Shield"]
gearTierNoQuality of the assumed rares: budget (mid rolls), mid (good rolls, more mods), high (perfect rolls, full mods). Wins over goals.budget; without either, budget. goals.budget only raises end-game (65+) gear, so at campaign levels all three budgets look the same.
passivesYesMain-tree passives taken by this level (key, id or exact name); missing connectors are added
mainSkillNo0-based index of the main damage skill (default 0)
ascendancyNo
weaponSwapNoWeapon swap: a second weapon set with its own passives and skills
amuletSkillNoA skill granted with no Spirit cost by a Lament, Portent or Absent Amulet (replaces the amulet), e.g. "Herald of Ash"
socketablesNoRunes, soul cores and idols to socket, by slot
flasksActiveNoCalculate with flasks active
helmetInstillNoNotable to instill on the helmet via a Raven-Touched Shard (level 60+, expensive)
ascendancyPassivesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0-beta
    • changedInput schema / properties / gearTier / description
      Previous value: -"Quality of the assumed rares: budget (default, mid rolls), mid (good rolls, more mods), high (perfect rolls, full mods)"New value: +"Quality of the assumed rares: budget (mid rolls), mid (good rolls, more mods), high (perfect rolls, full mods). Wins over goals.budget; without either, budget. goals.budget only raises end-game (65+) gear, so at campaign levels all three budgets look the same."
  2. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation only declares a safe read, but the description adds rich behavioral context: it's an estimate not a guarantee, Windows-only, Timeless jewels are unsupported, assumed gear is generated when `items` is absent, missing passives are auto-filled, and the default gear tier logic is explained. These caveats and assumptions go well beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one dense paragraph of roughly 300 words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the mass of detail about gear assumptions, optional features, and limitations is packed into long sentences without structural breaks, making it harder to scan than it needs to be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description still details the return values (damage, kill times, survivability, resistances, Spirit, verdict band, goalCheck, setupGaps). For a 22-parameter tool with nested objects, it covers assumptions, caveats, and limitations thoroughly enough that an agent knows what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 73%, so the schema already documents many parameters, but the description adds relational meaning: how `terms` and `defence` shape assumed gear, how `gearTier` overrides `goals.budget`, how `items` slots replace assumed gear, and what `socketables`/`anoint`/`amuletSkill` do. Some parameters like `avoid` and `ascendancyPassives` receive no prose explanation, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Real numbers from Path of Building's calculation engine for a planned build at a character level.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming compare_builds for side-by-side comparison and referencing build_intake for goals, so an agent can tell which tool to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes comparison work to compare_builds and explains that `goals` come from build_intake, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when to prefer check_build, optimize_build, or other evaluative siblings, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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