vapi_market_player_listings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: read-only behavior, one logical GET request, no auto-fetching, 100-row/256 KiB local limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is unusually transparent and gives an agent concrete expectations about side effects and boundaries.

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 and front-loaded, but it contains unclear phrasing ('PACKS/RIFT matched...'), grammatical run-ons ('GET request Does not auto-fetch'), and vague meta-sentences about forwarded filters and tool policy. It is compact but not as clean or purposeful as it could be.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent what data is preserved (identities, currencies, prices, remaining quantities), how truncation is communicated, and what limits apply. The main gaps are the meaning of the all_listings relationship and how continuation pages would be requested, which keep it from full completeness.

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%, yet the description does not define the three required parameters individually. 'Asset/detailId' and 'account' give partial context, but the description never explains what values are expected for asset, detailId, or player, and the note about tool policy adds no semantic guidance.

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 first sentence identifies a specific operation: reading account listing items for one asset/detailId, and the description explicitly says it does not create or change listings. However, it does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like vapi_market_player_all_listings, and the 'PACKS/RIFT matched...' phrasing is ambiguous.

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 conveys a clear narrow scope ('for one asset/detailId') and notes that it does not auto-fetch continuation pages, implying when it might be used. But it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or what conditions would make another market/player listing tool more appropriate.

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