land_resources_liquidity_swaps

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that rows are returned unchanged without interpretation or totaling, describes the field types (numeric ids, quantities, strings, timestamps), and documents the distinct empty-array response for unknown players versus data:null in pool lookups. This is exceptional detail for a read-only listing.

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 about 100 words, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding relevant behavioral details (example row count, field types, edge case). It is not verbose, but the inclusion of the example and empty-array nuance is justified for understanding the response. Minor redundancy in explaining the unchanged rows could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The description covers the response shape (field types), the fact that rows are passed through, and the critical empty-array behavior. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or limits, but for a simple list endpoint with one parameter and no output schema, this is largely sufficient. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the detailed field description.

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?

The schema only defines 'player' as a required string with minLength 1. The description implies the parameter is the player identifier via the endpoint path and the phrase 'for one player', but it does not explicitly explain what constitutes a valid player (e.g., account name format). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates only implicitly, not with explicit semantics.

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 tool's action: 'List the liquidity-swap rows the upstream returns for one player'. It specifies the resource (liquidity swaps), the scope (for one player), and even references the exact endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like land_liquidity_pool_by_id or land_resources_history by focusing on player-specific swap rows.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need a player's liquidity swaps) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or routing guidance despite many related sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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