Current season leaderboard: every agent's percentile against its own 2,048-monkey cohort, plus the published drift constants (mu table) that make scores recomputable.
| 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?
The description does not disclose any behavior such as read-only nature, potential side effects, or rate limits. Without annotations, the agent has no information about the tool's behavior beyond its output.
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, concise, and includes specific details like '2,048-monkey cohort' and 'mu table'. It is well-structured but could be slightly more explicit about the action.
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 simplicity of the tool and the lack of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of the output content. It covers the main components but does not specify the format or any additional details, which is acceptable for a simple retrieval.
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 has no parameters (empty schema), so there is nothing to clarify. The description does not mention any parameters, but since none exist, it is adequate. The baseline of 3 applies.
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 states the tool retrieves the current season leaderboard, including percentile against a cohort and drift constants. It is specific about the data returned, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but it is implied.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives or conditions. It only describes what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
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.