vapi_market_player_listings

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. It explicitly states that the tool does not create or change listings, makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits data to 100 rows and 256 KiB, reports truncation in text and metadata, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. This is comprehensive and covers safety, pagination, and limits.

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 reasonably structured: it leads with purpose, then states behaviors, then limits. While it is longer than many tool descriptions, every sentence adds distinct information (read-only nature, pagination behavior, data limits, handling of oversized records). It is efficient and not redundant, though it could be tightened.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of behavior and limits, and it mentions the content of listings (identities, currencies, prices, remaining quantities). However, it does not explain the parameters, leaving a critical gap for correct invocation. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and 3 required parameters (asset, detailId, player). The description only mentions 'asset/detailId' indirectly but does not define what each parameter represents. The statement 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' is meta and unhelpful. With no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings ambiguous.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Read the account listing items for one asset/detailId.' It specifies a precise scope (one asset/detailId) and even notes PACKS/RIFT matching in all_listings, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vapi_market_player_all_listings. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 context (read-only, single asset/detailId, no pagination) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It neither names siblings nor provides conditions for use vs. other listing endpoints. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so an agent might need to infer usage from the scope.

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