top_track_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does so by revealing that this tool makes three GET /me/top/tracks calls (quota), applies recency weights, and produces a ranked leaderboard. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect status, but no mutation language appears and the cost/aggregation disclosure carries most of the burden.

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 sentences front-load the core scoring algorithm and then provide quota/cost information. There is no filler or redundancy; each sentence adds distinct useful context.

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 read-only aggregation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: inputs/fetches, weighting, output type, and API cost. It leaves some ambiguity about exact result fields and duplicate/tie handling across windows, but the schema's response_format descriptions cover output modalities.

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?

All three parameters are already covered by the input schema with defaults, ranges, and enum semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond confirming the three time windows, which makes the 'per window' limit meaningful.

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 specific operation: score top tracks across all three Spotify time windows with explicit recency weights (short×3, medium×2, long×1) and output a ranked combined leaderboard. It also names the underlying endpoint and quota, making the tool easy to distinguish from siblings like get_top_tracks or top_track_ranking_delta.

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 phrase 'across all three time windows' gives clear context for when to choose this tool: when a combined recency-weighted ranking is needed rather than a single-window top-tracks result. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it is short of a 5.

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