Estimate SkyBlock Net Worth

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pricing comes from live Bazaar data with an optional external lowest-BIN source, modifiers are only counted if 'supported', and the response includes pricing coverage - useful disclosure of dependencies and known gaps.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the compute-and-price mechanics are front-loaded before the return-value summary. Slightly packed - the second sentence is a long comma list - but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the return payload (total, per-section breakdown, top items, modifier breakdown, pricing coverage). The one gap is that with 13 optional parameters and four different player/profile identifiers, it gives no hint about which identifier combination to prefer.

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 85%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description loosely maps to a few flags (sacks, modifiers, auction pricing) but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, and gives no guidance on choosing among the four identity parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Estimate') plus a specific resource ('a profile's net worth') and enumerates the value sources (liquid coins, decoded inventory/storage, sacks, modifiers). This clearly differentiates it from the component-level siblings like skyblock_inventory, skyblock_storage, and skyblock_bazaar, which it aggregates.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose - an agent can infer it should be used when a user asks for total value rather than raw holdings - but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named (e.g. 'use skyblock_inventory if you only need raw items'). Nothing misleading, just unstated.

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