Members ranked by standing bid totals (cumulative, but decaying when quiet; any new bid revives the full total); #1 holds the homepage spot. to_take_first_usd is the single bid that takes #1. Optional limit/offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the decay mechanism ('decaying when quiet'), revival behavior, the significance of the #1 slot, and the meaning of 'to_take_first_usd'. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns leaderboard' statement.
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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with key behavioral details. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or repetition.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description has the burden of clarifying the response shape. It does not mention what fields are returned, whether it's an array of member objects, or how the limit/offset affect the results. The ranking logic is explained, but the output format is left entirely unspecified, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (limit, offset). It only states 'Optional limit/offset,' which adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type/minimum/maximum. It does not explain what each parameter controls (e.g., number of members, pagination start).
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's function: 'Members ranked by standing bid totals' – a specific verb (ranked) and resource (members). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the ranking logic and the special #1 homepage spot, making it unambiguous which tool to select for leaderboard queries.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternative tools, prerequisites, or situations where this tool would be inappropriate. The description only describes functionality, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: list vs. single member vs. leaderboard vs. navigation vs. random vs. informational guides. There is no meaningful overlap, and descriptions make selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow the same ring_ prefix with lowercase snake_case descriptive nouns or info suffixes. The pattern is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a webring browsing and information API. Each endpoint covers a logical facet of the domain without redundancy or bloat.
The surface fully covers the core webring experience: browsing members, navigation, random discovery, categories, leaderboard, and the two key informational flows (joining and bidding). No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.