fomo_get_user_rank

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral context. It implies a read operation but does not disclose what 'rank cut' means, the return shape, or any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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, efficient line with no filler or redundant wording. It packs the resource, scope, and time periods into a compact phrase, which is good for an agent glance.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it leaves 'rank cut' undefined and does not clarify what the returned data will look like. The time frames are listed, but the meaning of the result and the expected id format are missing.

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 description does not explain the 'id' parameter beyond the implicit 'for a user'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should clearly state that 'id' refers to a user identifier, but it does not, leaving the parameter semantics mostly to inference.

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 states a specific resource: a user's leaderboard rank across time periods, and implies a retrieval action. It differentiates itself from the broader fomo_get_leaderboard sibling by focusing on a single user, though the term 'rank cut' is ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives like fomo_get_leaderboard or fomo_get_user. The phrase 'for a user' gives a clue it is user-scoped, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to siblings are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.