[PLAY] VIA Points leaderboards. Without a quest_slug: overall points ranking across the network. With a quest_slug: first correct solvers of that quest in order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Rows to return (default 20) | |
| quest_slug | No | Optional quest slug for a per-quest solver board |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the two leaderboard types and ordering ('in order' for the quest_slug mode), but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or response format. For a read-only get tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and the structure clearly separates the two modes. No filler or redundant rephrasing of the schema.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core behavioral distinction between the two modes, which is the primary context an agent needs. It does not delve into response fields or ranking direction, but given the simplicity and the schema's documentation of limit, this is reasonably complete.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that omitting quest_slug yields the overall points ranking, which is not stated in the schema. It also reinforces the interpretation of quest_slug as 'first correct solvers ... in order', matching the schema's phrasing but adding the 'overall' contrast.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('VIA Points leaderboards') and the two distinct modes (overall points ranking vs. per-quest solver board). This is specific enough to differentiate it from any sibling tool, as no other tool is leaderboard-related. The verb 'get' is implied by the name and the description covers the main purpose without ambiguity.
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 explicitly explains when to use each mode ('Without a quest_slug' vs. 'With a quest_slug'), providing clear conditional context. However, it does not name any alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when-to-use vs. when-not-to guidance.
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.
Several tool pairs could be confused, such as get_offers vs get_redemption_offers, get_world_eggs vs discover_egg, and the human vs agent purchase flows (initiate_purchase/confirm_purchase vs initiate_agent_purchase/confirm_agent_purchase). The descriptions are detailed and mostly disambiguating, but the presence of a retired tool (create_concierge) and multiple similarly named status/check tools add ambiguity.
The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_drops, submit_design, redeem_points, verify_world_id). Minor deviations include 'priscilla_post' (proper noun prefix) and the interchangeable use of get/check/verify for status-like tools, but the overall convention is consistent and readable.
With 44 tools, the server is well above the 25-tool threshold that makes a surface feel heavy. Even though the platform covers many domains (commerce, affiliate, design, quests, concierge, marketing), this many tools strains discoverability and agent decision-making.
The buyer and designer flows are well covered (search → detail → purchase → download; brief → submit → status), but the brand side is incomplete. register_brand promises the ability to create briefs and product listings, yet no tools exist to create briefs or products, and there are no update/delete/refund operations for any resource, leaving registered brands at a dead end.