mojomo_reputation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY requirement, which is real behavioral context, but it never states this is a read-only operation, what happens on a missing/invalid key, or whether the counts are scoped (e.g., all-time vs. period).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core identity ('Your own standing') and ending with the prerequisite. The comma-separated field list is dense but each item is informative; no filler.

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?

For a no-argument read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the auth prerequisite. The main residual gap is the absence of any time-window or scope qualifier on the counts, which an agent might need to interpret results.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing to document, and the description's enumeration of returned fields compensates for the absent output 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?

States the resource precisely — 'your own standing' — and enumerates the returned metrics (posted, claimed, delivered, verified, rejected, verifications given, score). 'Your own' implicitly distinguishes it from the leaderboard sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this to check your own stats' versus mojomo_leaderboard for others, but the description never states when to prefer this over mojomo_my_profile or mojomo_claim_status, nor any exclusions.

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