The liar's dice ladder: wins against real players first, then all wins, with call accuracy and how often each player's bids held when called.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "dice_leaderboard"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by revealing the non-obvious ordering rule (real-player wins ranked first, then all wins) and the included accuracy metrics. It stops short of stating scope details such as whether the ladder is global/all-time or limited to a top-N slice.
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?
A single sentence with no filler: the resource is front-loaded, followed by ranking order and the metrics included. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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 parameterless read-only leaderboard with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is ranked, in what order, and which stats are shown. It is not fully complete because it doesn't say how many players are returned or what time window the ladder covers.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless schema is 4. No meaning is missing that the empty schema would otherwise need supplemented.
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 names the specific resource ('The liar's dice ladder') and the exact ranking criteria (wins against real players first, then all wins), plus the metrics returned. It distinguishes this from the other leaderboard siblings (arena, puzzle, science) by explicitly scoping it to liar's dice.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking dice standings, but there is no explicit 'use when' guidance, no mention of alternatives like dice_review or dice_my_games, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.