fomo_get_clan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that clan details can be windowed ('optionally for a window'), but does not describe what fields are returned, whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, or response behavior. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is under-specified in content but not in structure; every phrase contributes.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a required but unexplained id parameter, this description is too sparse. It does not convey what output to expect, what window formats are acceptable beyond '7d', or how this connects to clan-related siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning for the optional window parameter via the example '7d'. The required 'id' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving the agent without guidance on what identifier to supply.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Clan detail') and an optional time window, making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling clan tools like fomo_get_clan_leaderboard or fomo_get_clan_holdings, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as fomo_search_clans or fomo_get_clan_feed. The only conditional information ('optionally for a window') implies a use case but provides no exclusions or alternatives, leaving an agent to infer selection criteria.

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