Get ratings leaderboard

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

Annotations already carry the read-only/open-world safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the page-oriented behavior and available filters but does not go deeper into default sorting or pagination mechanics; that is acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields and filters. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnly/openWorld annotations already supplied, the description covers the resource, row shape, and all filter dimensions. The only implicit element is the default ordering of a leaderboard, which is reasonably inferred from the word 'leaderboard'; still, a small explicit note on ordering would make it fully 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?

All six parameters are documented in the schema with types, defaults, and meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description only groups them as 'optional country, name and tier filters' without adding syntax or combination rules, so no uplift beyond baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and names a precise resource, 'Repovive's global ratings leaderboard'—the word 'global' distinguishes this from sibling contest-specific endpoints like repovive_get_contest_ranking. It also lists the returned row fields, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly frames the tool for retrieving the global leaderboard with optional filtering, which is sufficient context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'global' qualifier plus sibling names provides clear context.

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