horizon_torn_getMyFactionBalance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states the purpose and does not address whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires specific authentication, or has side effects. The 'key' parameter hints at auth but is not explained in the description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated into purpose and usage).

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?

With no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not hint at the structure of the return value (e.g., whether it returns a list of balances or a single object). For a data retrieval tool, this omission forces the agent to rely on experience or trial.

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 100% (all 4 parameters described in the schema), so the description does not need to add parameter info. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('your faction's & member's balance details'), with a specific verb-noun pair. It distinguishes this tool from many sibling faction tools (e.g., getMyFactionMembers, getMyFactionBasicInformation) by focusing on balance details, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context (e.g., 'Use when you need faction balance info; for member lists use getMyFactionMembers'). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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