statsfm_top_albums

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It does indicate an implied read operation and that the results are ranked by streaming counts, but it says nothing about pagination, response format, sorting, authentication, or any other operational 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 a single short phrase, but it is more under-specification than concise. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this level of brevity omits important practical details, so the piece does not earn its place as a functional description.

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 should say what the caller will receive—e.g., a list of albums ordered by streams, with default formatting. It only says 'most-streamed albums', which is enough to identify the topic but not enough to understand the return shape or constraints such as limit and offset.

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 input schema already describes all six parameters, with descriptions and enums for `range` and `response_format`. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description itself adds no parameter-level information or context that the schema does not already provide.

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 names the resource ('a stats.fm user's most-streamed albums') but does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. It is clear about the domain and the user-scoping, though it does not itself distinguish from closely related siblings such as statsfm_top_albums_from_artist, leaving that inference to the tool name.

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 text offers zero guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention related tools like statsfm_top_tracks, statsfm_top_albums_from_artist, or statsfm_album_stats, nor does it provide any context for when a user should call it.

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