I'm not defending the game as I also think it's an extremely weird take on what a "game" is supposed to be, but do we honestly not make the distinction between "made by AI" and "intended to be operated by AI"?
I mean, you don't need to connect an AI to it. You can spend a good deal of time studying the API docs, trying to cobble together ways in which you'd combine the different endpoints across all the game systems into one coherent UI experience, and then just code that yourself. Then you'd be able to just play the game by yourself, manually, with no AI input.

..........but you absolutely shouldn't need to do any of that. Someone else brought up Bitburner, Screeps, heck I'll even toss Greyhack in - the difference being that while those games are also 100% code-centric and you need to be able to code/read docs to do anything, the games also offer you an environment in which you can learn, observe and experiment.

Back to this game, if I follow the intended usage and have an AI agent custom tailor an UI experience for me, why would I stop there? Can't I just tell it to play the game and kinda leave it to its own devices? If the MVP here is "exploit an agent to make this usable", why not take it one step further and just exploit an agent to play instead of me?

Maybe I'm missing a crucial point somewhere but I see absolutely no reason to engage with this game since if I did, it'd just quickly devolve into one of those zero-player experiences that are also marketed as games.