player_richlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses top-N semantics, no offset support, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, local 100-row and 256 KiB truncation with reporting, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields. This goes well beyond a typical read-tool description.

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 long but information-dense, with each sentence contributing a meaningful constraint or behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor grammar issues and a missing period are present, but they do not significantly hurt comprehension.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return and edge-case behavior. It covers the returned aggregate figures, top-N rows, truncation, non-pagination, and oversized-record refusal. It could still be clearer about the exact response fields and the meaning of the player parameter, but overall it is nearly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that token_type is required and that limit returns leading rows, and it warns that filters may be forwarded without guaranteed effect. However, 'player optionally adds player_rank' is confusing because player_rank is not a schema parameter, and the exact semantics of the player parameter are not clearly stated.

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 a specific read operation: token-holder rankings plus upstream total_accounts and total_quantity figures. It is not a tautology and gives the required token_type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling player_richlist_ranking.

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 strong usage context: limit returns leading rows, this is a top-N query rather than a complete holder listing, and continuation pages are not auto-fetched. It also warns that declared filters are forwarded without implying their effectiveness. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for complete or paginated listings, so it is not a 5.

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