Given a ranking id, return the ranking {id,title,slug} and its ranked tools [{id,name,slug,url,rank,badge}] (badge: Best/Usable/Needs work/Unstable/Failed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ranking_id | Yes | Ranking id (from list_rankings). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits). The burden is fully on the description, which is insufficient.
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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and return format, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.
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 simple query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return structure and even lists possible badge values, providing adequate context for the 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 coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter ranking_id. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 tool returns ranking fields (id, title, slug) and an array of tools with detailed fields (id, name, slug, url, rank, badge), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_ranking or list_rankings.
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 when you have a ranking_id and want tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives such as get_ranking or rankings_for_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct entity or action: list tools enumerate different content types, get tools retrieve specific entities, search finds across the catalogue, compare_tools does head-to-head comparison, and the two cross-reference tools (rankings_for_tool and tools_in_ranking) are inverse operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, compare_tools, search), but 'rankings_for_tool' and 'tools_in_ranking' deviate with a noun_prep_noun pattern. These two are internally consistent with each other and remain readable, so the overall convention is only slightly disrupted.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a catalogue covering seven entity types, search, comparison, and cross-references. Each tool has a distinct role and none are redundant, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
The tool surface covers all major content types with list and get (except categories and toolkits, which only have list endpoints), plus search, comparison, and inverse cross-references. Minor gaps like missing get_toolkit or get_category are workaround-able since list_toolkits and list_categories expose sufficient metadata.
