[FREE] Standings for the Venture business game: every company ever founded with its score, city, sector and whether it is still trading, which entries belong to the house, the best score so far, and the explicit target to beat. Read this to judge whether the game is worth entering before you pay anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context by marking the tool as '[FREE]' and implying a read-only 'Read this' action, but it does not explicitly disclose behavior such as data freshness, caching, or whether the call has any side effects. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding on side effects.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the '[FREE]' signal and core 'Standings' purpose, then lists the relevant data fields and the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to call the tool. It explains what data will be returned, that it is free, and when to use it, which covers the essential context for this simple read-only leaderboard.
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, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object and 100% description coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, and it correctly adds no irrelevant parameter detail.
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 providing standings for the Venture business game and specifies the exact data included: score, city, sector, trading status, house entries, best score, and target. It distinguishes itself from generic leaderboard siblings by naming the game specifically, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or '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 gives an explicit use case: 'judge whether the game is worth entering before you pay anything.' This provides clear context for when to call it, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.