loot_standings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions data comes from 'public tRPC lanes' implying a read-only operation, and notes the requirement for LOOT_API_URL. It does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or error behavior, but enough is implied for a likely safe read. It lacks explicit readOnly declaration but does not contradict any annotation (since none exist).

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 tight, with three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and then explain parameters. No wasted words, and the environment requirement is noted succinctly. Structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, parameters, and environment requirement. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior when both wallet and day are given, or when neither is passed. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent, though not critical for a read-only data fetch.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does: it explains that wallet filters for a specific wallet's rank/standing, and day filters for a past day's final board, including the date format. This goes beyond the raw patterns and clarifies the purpose of each parameter, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clear purpose: returning season clock and daily prize board data, with optional filtering by wallet or day. It uses specific resource terms ('season clock', 'daily prize board') and is distinct from siblings like loot_status or loot_list_tokens, which focus on other aspects. The verb is implied but clear enough.

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 usage guidance for parameters (wallet for rank/standing, day for past board) and mentions the necessary environment variable LOOT_API_URL. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to choose this tool over alternatives. The guidance is functional but not comprehensive.

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