tournament_prizes

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses several important behaviors: it makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, locally limits array responses to 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reported, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. This goes well beyond minimal expectations and helps the agent manage results safely.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is excellent. However, some sentences are vague and not directly actionable for this parameterless tool, such as 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied; their effectiveness is not implied by the schema.' These could mislead or add noise, making the description longer than necessary.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description provides useful operational details like limits and refusal behavior, but it does not clarify what 'aggregate figures' actually contain (e.g., total prize amounts, breakdowns) or why this endpoint should be chosen over nearby tournament listing tools. For an agent to call it correctly, this may be sufficient, but richer context would improve confidence.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100% by definition. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the few generic statements about 'required inputs' and 'declared filters' are vague but not harmful. No additional parameter semantics are missing.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read upstream awarded and upcoming tournament prize aggregate figures'. It further clarifies it does not claim prizes, distinguishing it from action-oriented tools. Among the many tournament_* siblings, this one is uniquely about prize aggregates, so an agent can easily tell it apart without examining schemas.

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 implies usage context by stating it reads precomputed aggregate figures and does not auto-fetch continuation pages, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. With dozens of related tournament and player endpoints, explicit routing would be valuable, but it is not provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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