player_unclaimed_balances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the HTTP 200-with-application-error behavior, the one-row-per-reward-type response shape, the string balance and last-updated date, and the empty-array meaning. It even notes that the accepted token_type set is not established, which is honest and useful.

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 long but information-dense; each sentence contributes a distinct caveat or behavioral fact. The opening purpose is front-loaded, and the error/response details are organized logically. It could be tightened slightly, but it is not padded.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does remarkable work: it covers response format, empty-array semantics, and an edge-case error. The main remaining gap is an authoritative list of accepted token_type values, but the description transparently acknowledges that this is unknown.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It confirms both parameters are required and notes that omitting token_type yields a misleading success response. It also mentions DEC, SPS, and CREDITS as tried token types but explicitly says the accepted set is not established. This adds some value, though username semantics and valid token_type values are still not defined.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return one account's unclaimed balances for one token from GET /players/unclaimed_balances.' This clearly identifies the endpoint and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like player_unclaimed_balance_history, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: one account, one token. It also warns that both username and token_type are required and explains the error behavior when token_type is omitted. However, it never mentions alternatives or explicitly says when not to use this tool versus related balance endpoints.

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