lounge_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is 'FREE', that rankings are based on specific criteria, and that confidence points are shown separately. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or response format, which are notable gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 exceptionally concise: four short sentences with zero filler. The 'FREE' note is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information (cost, ranking order, confidence points, optional board). No word is wasted.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, ranking criteria, cost, and parameter usage. It omits return value details (e.g., whether it lists all players or just top N, pagination), but given the tool's simplicity and the detailed schema, it is reasonably 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 100%, so the input schema already thoroughly documents the 'game' parameter including allowed values and defaults. The description's mention of 'Optionally one board, e.g. 'sequence' or 'cipher-grandmaster'' adds only a redundant example, providing no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (all-time leaderboards) and the ranking logic (best streak, total solved, average response time), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like lounge_firsts or lounge_browse_duels, but 'leaderboard' is distinct enough within the lounge context.

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: if you want all-time rankings, use this tool. It explains the optional board parameter and gives examples, which is mild guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lounge_firsts for first-solve records) or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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