djd-agent-score-mcp

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the return structure ('Array of { wallet, score, tier }'), the ranking nature ('ranked list'), and the cost model ('FREE'). It does not contradict any annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, cost, args) and front-loaded with the core action. It is slightly redundant with the input schema regarding the limit parameter, but the structure facilitates LLM parsing.

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 the low complexity (single optional parameter) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by documenting the return structure textually. Combined with rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, this provides sufficient context for invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the limit parameter, the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's description ('Maximum number of entries to return (1-100)') in an Args section without adding additional semantic context like default behavior or pagination strategy.

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 'Get the leaderboard of top-scored AI agent wallets,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like score_basic, score_full (which calculate scores) and register_agent (which creates records) by focusing on retrieval of existing rankings.

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 notes 'This is a FREE endpoint,' providing operational context about cost constraints. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_badge or score_full, or when pagination might be needed versus the limit parameter.

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