Skip to main content
Glama

land_resources_leaderboards

Get Splinterlands Land resource leaderboard rows for a resource symbol, with optional player, region, territory, and limit filters.

Instructions

List the resource-leaderboard rows the upstream returns, as GET /land/resources/leaderboards returns them. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is an array of rows carrying rank, player, amount, amount2, resource_per_hour, guild, title_pre, data and id. The numeric fields are JSON numbers, and this server returns them unchanged; it does not convert, round, total or compare them, and a change in their wire type would be reported as a malformed response rather than converted silently. The nested data field is a JSON-encoded string, not an object; this server returns it exactly as received and does not parse it, and a change in that wire type would be reported as malformed rather than converted. The upstream matches resource case-sensitively against its exact symbol. This tool uppercases resource before making the request, but it does not enforce an enum because the observed symbols are not a declared exhaustive set. Omitting resource returned HTTP 400. Omitting region with no territory produced no HTTP response in two measurements and timed out; territory was observed to work standalone without region, so this tool refuses only when both region and territory are absent. That refusal is this server's safety choice based on the observed hang, not an upstream validation rule. Supplying player returned that player's row in addition to the normal top rows. Paging probes supplied offset=0, offset=5, page=2 and from=5; each returned parsed data equal to the limit=5 baseline. limit=50 returned 50 rows whose first five matched that baseline in the same order, and no ceiling was found at the tested limits 5 and 50. No value tried for offset, page or from produced a later slice. This tool reports the rows the upstream returned and nothing else.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
playerNo
regionNo
resourceYes
territoryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses response format, exact wire-type preservation for numbers and nested data, case-sensitivity and uppercasing, error behavior for missing resource, timeout for missing region with no territory, and paging behavior based on probes. This is far beyond minimal and gives an agent a precise model of what the tool will and won't do.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally long, including detailed probe results such as 'offset=0, offset=5, page=2 and from=5' and the exact timeout observation. While nearly every sentence carries behavioral information, the level of detail is more than needed for an agent to call the tool correctly; it could be condensed without losing essential guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the response wrapper, key fields, type invariants, error cases, and paging limitations, so an agent knows exactly what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that resource is required and uppercased, that region and territory have a mutual-absence refusal, that player adds a row, that limit controls count (tested up to 50), and that offset/page/from have no effect. However, it does not define the semantic meaning of parameters (e.g., what region or territory represent), relying on the schema's names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the resource-leaderboard rows the upstream returns.' It clearly identifies the endpoint and what it returns. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like land_resources_richlist or player_leaderboard, so it relies on the tool name for differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions sibling tools or conditions that would route an agent to them. It only describes internal behavior, so an agent gets no 'use X when Y' or 'instead use Z' advice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools