The word partners tables: best scores by pairs of real players (out of 18), and each player's first-try rates as clue giver and guesser.
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": "words_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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden and does disclose the shape of the return: two tables, best pair scores normalized out of 18, and per-player first-try rates split by role. It omits scope (global vs. personal), time window, whether output is paginated, and any auth requirements.
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 that packs the two returned tables and the scoring scale without filler. The colon-led structure is slightly awkward but nothing is wasted.
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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what the two result tables contain, which is the main thing an agent needs. It could go further on scope and freshness, but it is close to complete for this complexity level.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. It does not misdescribe any inputs.
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?
Names the resource ('word partners tables') and the two datasets returned, which distinguishes it from sibling leaderboards like puzzle_leaderboard or dice_leaderboard. But there is no verb and the framing 'The word partners tables:' is jargon that leaves an agent inferring this is a read/list leaderboard call rather than stating it.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as the per-game tools (words_my_games, words_review) or other leaderboards. The agent must infer that this is the stats-viewing endpoint for the words game.
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.