vapi_market_player_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals paging limitations ('conventional row-offset paging is not established'), no auto-fetch of continuation pages, local limits (100 rows, 256 KiB) with truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. These details give an agent accurate expectations about the tool's behavior.

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 dense paragraph with many clauses and not front-loaded beyond the opening purpose. It covers multiple behavioral details in a single run-on structure, which reduces readability. While each sentence adds value, it could be broken into bullet points or shorter sentences for better clarity.

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, the description should describe what the response contains. It mentions 'data list' and truncation, but not the structure or fields of the returned records. It also doesn't cover all possible parameter values. For a 5-param tool with zero schema coverage, this is incomplete, though it covers many operational aspects like limits and paging.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It partially explains parameters: types accepts 'purchase,sale', sort uses 'desc' and 'asc', and limit bounds returned rows. However, it does not explain the 'player' parameter or enumerate all valid types/sorts, and the statement 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' is vague. It adds some meaning but not comprehensive coverage.

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 'Read account market purchases and sales,' which clearly identifies the action (read) and resource (account market purchases and sales). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling market tools that handle listings or prices, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It avoids tautology and gives a concrete purpose.

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 concrete parameter guidance, such as 'types=purchase,sale and sort=desc' and explains offset behavior ('offset=1 did not select the second record'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like vapi_market_player_listings or market_history. The usage context is implied through parameter examples, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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