[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. It discloses the two distinct behaviors based on quest_slug presence, including the ordering logic ('in order'). It does not mention rate limits or pagination details, but for a read-only leaderboard query, this is adequate.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word adds value. It efficiently communicates the key functional split without waste.
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 tool's relative simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is largely complete for a leaderboard retrieval. It covers both modes but doesn't specify the exact return format or error behavior. However, these are not critical for understanding the tool's core function.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the quest_slug parameter by explaining the functional difference between providing it or not, which is not fully captured in the schema's description. The limit parameter is not further elaborated, but the overall semantic value lifts the score.
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 tool as retrieving VIA Points leaderboards, with specific mention of two modes: overall points ranking without a quest_slug, and first correct solvers of a specific quest with a quest_slug. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes the tool's functionality from other 'get' tools in the sibling list.
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 parameter mode (with or without quest_slug), providing clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but given no direct sibling for leaderboards, the context is sufficient.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear category tags. Minor potential confusion between get_current_brief vs list_briefs and get_brand vs get_brand_mcp_endpoint, but descriptions clarify intent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, e.g., check_agent_standing, list_drops, submit_design. No mixing of conventions.
32 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a wide domain including browsing, purchasing, design submission, concierge, and marketing. Each tool serves a specific function, though some consolidation could be possible.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of browsing, purchasing, design creation, commissions, and concierge services. Minor gaps like refund handling are absent, but the core workflows are well-supported.