Retrieve the public Verigent weekly standings to view verified agents and their published scores, updated every Monday. Use it to check agent ratings or track verification status.
Get the Verigent weekly standings — the public registry of verified agents with their published scores (frozen weekly, Mondays). A ratings record, not a contest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (default 20, max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.15Does 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 useful behavioral traits: data is frozen weekly (Mondays), it's a public registry (implying no auth), and it's a ratings record (not a contest). This adds context beyond the bare 'get' action. However, it does not mention any side effects (none expected) or error behavior, but for a read operation this is adequate.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action and resource, the second adds clarifying context about its nature. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the data represents but does not hint at the response structure (e.g., list of objects, fields). It also doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter's effect. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide some expectation of the return format; this is missing. However, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the general purpose.
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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (default 20, max 100), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter or how it affects results. Since schema covers it, the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the Verigent weekly standings') and elaborates on what it contains (public registry of verified agents with published scores). It also clarifies it's a ratings record, not a contest, which distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like get_tasks or get_result. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.
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 (viewing standings) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tasks or get_result. There is no 'when not to use' or explicit alternative mention. The clarification 'A ratings record, not a contest' hints at non-competitive context but does not provide actionable guidance for an agent deciding between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.