pl_player_leaderboard

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open world, idempotent), the description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Auth: none needed' and detailing the exact return shape with pagination and data rows. This goes beyond the annotation hints and helps the agent understand the tool's side-effect-free and response behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose summary, a clear return-type block, and a JSON example with an auth note. Every part earns its place without fluff 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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format, including the structure of playerMetadata and stats, and provides an example for clarity. It covers pagination, auth, and the key parameters, making it complete for a read-only leaderboard tool of this complexity.

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 already covers all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by listing additional Opta metric examples (total_passes) and providing a full example request that demonstrates how cid, sid, sort, and limit are combined, adding meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 is a 'Player stat leaderboard for a season' with sorting by Opta metrics and filtering by position, which distinguishes it from team-level leaderboards and other player stat tools. The example of '2025/26 top scorers' reinforces the specific purpose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (season leaderboard, sortable metrics, position filter) and provides a concrete usage example. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative player-stat tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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