player_unclaimed_balances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burdencars. It reveals a non-obvious HTTP 200 application error, describes the response row structure ('account, token, type, a string balance and a last-updated date, alongside a last_claim_date'), clarifies that an empty array means no unclaimed rows rather than an error, and honestly admits the accepted token_type set is not established. This is thorough behavioral context.

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 one of the four sentences earns its place: endpoint and purpose, parameter requirement with error behavior, response shape, then empty-array semantics and token-type uncertainty. The most critical information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: required parameters, error semantics, response row shape, and empty-array interpretation. It does not cover every potential failure mode (e.g., invalid token_type, unknown username), but its honest note that the token set is not established shows awareness of limits and makes this fairly complete for a simple two-parameter endpoint.

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 input schema is minimal (only type and minLength for two parameters, 0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that both parameters are required, demonstrating the consequence of omitting token_type, and providing observations about limited token_type values (DEC, SPS, CREDITS) while noting the accepted set is unconfirmed. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not fully resolve the possible token_type universe.

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 operation: 'Return one account's unclaimed balances for one token' and anchors it to a specific endpoint. This is a specific verb + resource construction, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'player_unclaimed_balance_history' tool, so it stays at a 4 rather than a 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 concrete operational guidance such as 'Both username and token_type are required' and explains the error behavior when token_type is omitted. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or provides exclusion conditions; usage is implied from the purpose rather than stated.

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