Game stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add context; it does so by stating the login prerequisite, which is an auth requirement not present in the annotations. It stops short of noting rate limits, whether 'totals' cover the full lifetime or just the window, or how days interacts with the returned granularity.

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 sentences: a dense front-loaded payload description followed by routing guidance. The metric enumeration earns its place and includes the useful unit note (playtime in seconds), though the list is long enough that a reader must parse past it to reach the tool-selection sentence.

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 must carry the return contents, and it does by listing the metric families. For a simple two-parameter read tool that is largely sufficient; remaining gaps are minor, such as whether totals span the requested window or the full history and whether data is bucketed per day as the name implies.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both game (slug or id, from gamealia_list_games, active account) and days (1-365, default 30) with bounds. The description only echoes 'last N days' and 'one game's', adding no format or constraint detail beyond structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (returns one game's daily stats plus totals), enumerates the metric families returned (plays, players, playtime, device split, ad requests/impressions), and explicitly names the scope of a single game over the last N days. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gamealia_get_earnings and gamealia_get_status, which it names directly.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ("see how a live game performs") and routes the agent away with named alternatives and their conditions: money -> gamealia_get_earnings, review state -> gamealia_get_status. An agent can pick between the three without opening any schema.

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