player_unclaimed_balance_history

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses that omitting token_type returns HTTP 200 with a message rather than an error, that the response is a bare array with specific row fields, that SPS and DEC can return different results, and that server-side 100-row and 256 KB bounds may truncate the answer. It even warns that the bounded answer is not guaranteed to be the full upstream history.

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?

Every sentence contributes useful information and the purpose is front-loaded before behavioral caveats. The paragraph is dense and slightly rambling, with anecdotal test results woven in, but it remains appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers required parameters, response shape, row fields, tested token values, and truncation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to understand the tool's contract is left unsaid.

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 for parameter meaning. It states both parameters are required, identifies username as an account and token_type as a token selector, and names the tested values DEC and SPS. However, it does not define the expected format or full valid value space for either parameter beyond these observations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the precise resource: one account's unclaimed-balance history for one token, tied to an exact upstream endpoint. The word 'history' plus per-account/per-token scoping is enough to distinguish it from balance-oriented siblings even without naming them.

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 clearly implies this is for fetching a single account's per-token unclaimed-balance history and stresses that both username and token_type are required. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over player_unclaimed_balances, player_archived_balances, or other history-style siblings, and it offers no exclusion guidance.

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