ranked_draws_recent_prizes

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 critical behaviors: unbounded upstream list, local limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation notice in text and metadata, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, refusal of oversized records, and that filters are forwarded as-is. This is exemplary transparency for a read tool with no schema.

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 bit verbose with redundant statements about limits (mentioned twice), but it front-loads the core action and immediately states key constraints. It could be trimmed, but it's organized and each sentence adds behavioral context. Slightly over-explained but not bloated.

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 no output schema, no parameters, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers limits, truncation behavior, policy, and refusal of oversized records. An agent knows exactly what to expect and how to handle edge cases. Nothing critical is missing for a tool with no inputs.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there's no schema to add meaning. The description explains what inputs exist (none directly, but mentions 'required inputs' and 'other declared filters' as policy) – but with 0 parameters, the description's role is to clarify that inputs are not accepted in this schema, which it does implicitly. It gets a high score because there's nothing to compensate, but it could be clearer about how filters are supplied.

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?

Description states it reads recent ranked draw mints, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by mentioning the unbounded upstream list and local limits, which is unique among siblings like ranked_draws_status or ranked_draws_available_prizes, but it doesn't directly name a sibling or contrast with frontier_draws_recent_prizes.

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?

Description clearly states when to use it (to read recent ranked draw mints) and explains the server-side constraints (100 rows, 256 KiB, truncation notice). It implies that this is the read endpoint for mints, and that other filters are not guaranteed effective, providing useful usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to an alternative.

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