get_activity_balances_network_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'Day aggregation only' and includes PIN and signature purchases. It explains the 'expand' parameter behavior. However, it does not mention limitations like the 10,000 record cap, potential authorization requirements, or side effects. Missing some important behavioral context.

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 3 sentences, each earning its place: purpose in first sentence, relevant details (day aggregation, expand usage) in the second, and a concluding statement on value. No filler or redundant 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers core purpose and the expand parameter but lacks details on how to use filters effectively, pagination, or the structure of the response. Adequate but with gaps that could confuse an AI agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'expand' parameter further, but does not enhance other parameters like 'fields', 'filters', or 'sort_by' beyond the schema descriptions. Overall, marginal added meaning.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'activity balance data', and the key attribute 'broken out by card network'. It lists example networks and mentions PIN and signature purchases, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_activity_balances' that likely provide aggregate data without network breakdown.

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 for network-specific transaction volumes and instructs to use the 'expand' parameter for specific transaction types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other types of balance analysis, which would strengthen guidance.

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