player_richlist_ranking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it makes one GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, imposes local limits on array responses (100 rows, 256 KiB), reports truncation, and refuses oversized records. This is rich behavioral context.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides critical usage constraints and behavioral notes in a structured, no-fluff manner. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given two simple string parameters and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: required inputs, upstream behavior, pagination, local limits, and truncation handling. It is complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that both token_type and player are required and that player is needed for account ranking. It does not explain the format of token_type (e.g., enum) but the context is sufficient for basic use.

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 that the tool reads one player's token rank and balance as reported by the upstream. It specifies the required parameters and distinguishes from the sibling 'player_richlist' (which likely returns a list, not a single player's rank).

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 explicitly says that token_type and player are required, and explains that without player the upstream returned only token_type (not an account ranking). It also clarifies that other filters are forwarded but not guaranteed to be effective. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the context is clear.

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