vapi_market_player_asset_detail_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it states that counts are returned unchanged without inferring relationships, makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, forwards filters without implying effectiveness, and details response limits (100 rows, 256 KiB) with truncation reporting and refusal of oversized records. These are all behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence, then providing an example, followed by a series of behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical, though it could be slightly more concise by grouping related behaviors.

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 a wide range of contextual details: response limits, truncation reporting, refusal behavior, no auto-fetch, and the nature of counts. It does not specify the exact response format or error handling beyond oversized records, but the provided information is substantial and likely sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 provides only parameter names and minLength, with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaningful context: 'player' is the account, and 'asset' and 'detailId' together identify the asset. It also notes that required inputs reflect tool policy and upstream requirements. However, it does not fully define each parameter's format or allowed values, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('upstream owned and listed counts'), and a precise scope ('for one account and asset/detailId'). It distinguishes this from siblings like vapi_market_player_listings by specifying it returns counts rather than listings. The example 'PACKS/RIFT returned owned=0 and listed=2' further clarifies the output nature.

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 usage when one needs owned/listed counts for a specific asset/detailId, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the purpose alone.

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