Lots of good suggestions, some, not so much.
First, you do not need hundreds of dollars in tools, far from it. A taped up pair of vice grips installs the roll pins, the stickies explain exactly how to use them A block of wood deck screwed to a firm object will accept the magazine, the upper can pin on, and you can tighten the barrel nut doing it that way. A vice is nice, not mandatory. The armorer's wrench - which isn't GI - is a good one - but I built my first AR without one.
What you need to know is how to use tools, not how to spend money on them.
As for the AR itself, there is more to know about what parts than meets the eye. One of the least considered points of building one is what are you going to shoot with it? It has a purpose, no point is just having any AR if it's not going to fit what you want it to do. As a firearm, it's going to shoot something, and it's going to have a optimum range it can do it. The first thing to decide is what range and what target it will be used at.
To contrast, a precision rifle built for 600m+ shooting is one thing, a CQB weapon for boarding ships or working inside buildings another. The first would need a flat shooting cartridge with aerodynamic bullet and a long barrel to get the most out of the powder charge, the latter a short barrel to work in tight quarters and few shots past 200m. The first hits paper, the second is used on human or game animals. The first might be a 6.5Grendel with a 20" precision barrel, the second a Mk18 clone with 10.5" barrel and because of the NFA regulations may need a approved stamp from the ATF - or - no stock at all because a pistol is the other short barreled option for legal use.
Target and range decides cartridge, cartridge sets barrel length, barrel length sets gas port location. These are important relationships that ensure reliable action and the parts needed have to be picked because of it.
There are also some myths about the AR which over time get woven into the fabric of everyday conversation. First, the military issue M16/M4 is built with a certain standard of performance in mind, but also cheaply enough to make a profit. The Government bids them and awards contracts to the lowest bidders - not those tested more reliable or even more efficient. They set standards for the quality of parts, the metal they are made of, how it's fashioned, and what testing they undergo to keep from buying parts that would be defective or unreliable. But - they do not insist on the absolute best weapon to ever be made. We as taxpayers don't get a say in it either as we delegated that responsibility to them. Which means Colt bids on contracts at the $500 to $750 range in large quantities, and that is a good benchmark in pricing. If you spend twice as much money it will still not shoot twice as far, with twice the power, twice as accurately, or twice as reliably. At best you get a 20% improvement. Price is what we have to pay buying the parts at retail, and if they are not military standard parts then you pay even more.
If you buy all the parts at retail, you don't get the savings of buying them in 1,000 item lots. They do, and they pay 45% or less doing it, which is why the can assemble the guns and charge less doing even that. One thing that helps balance the money spent is to pay attention to specifications and understand which are important - and which don't do anything. Remember that parts makers often sell parts because they can, not because we need them. Many build to simply impress others with their creation, using it with any appreciable skill never crosses their mind. Others train to use them and what name goes on it frankly means nothing unless if affects reliability.
You get to choose, the result will be based on your decisions.