pl_player_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sorting, filtering, pagination (next_cursor), and response structure, but does not detail authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The response structure is partially described but not comprehensively.

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 concise (about 50 words) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a response structure example in a clear format. Every sentence adds value, though some parameter details are missing.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality (sorting, filtering, pagination) and response structure. However, it lacks details on required parameters (cid, sid) and authentication. It is moderately complete but has gaps.

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 0%, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the description. It explains the sort parameter ('sort by any Opta metric') and position filter, but provides no additional meaning for cid, sid, limit, or next_cursor beyond their names. The example helps but does not define required parameters.

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 it returns a player stat leaderboard for a season, with sorting by any Opta metric and filtering by position. The example '2025/26 top scorers' reinforces the purpose, and the resource (player leaderboard) is distinct from sibling tools like pl_player or pl_player_basic.

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 implies usage context (season, sorting, filtering) but provides no explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pl_player or pl_player_season_stats. No when-not or alternative tool guidance is given.

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