points_list_alltimeList viewers ranked by all-time loyalty points for a StreamElements channel, with paging via limit and offset.
List viewers ranked by all-time points.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items per page | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip, for paging | |
| channel | No | StreamElements channel id (24-char hex). Defaults to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the channel that owns the token. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the one-line purpose—it does not mention pagination behavior, channel scoping, default channel resolution, or return format—so it provides no value beyond structured fields.
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?
A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and the all-time scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list endpoint.
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 paginated read with fully described parameters and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be more complete by explicitly differentiating this all-time leaderboard from points_list_top and points_list_watchtime, but an agent can still identify the tool from the 'all-time points' phrasing.
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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (limit, offset, channel) fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the channel ID format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and resource ('viewers ranked by all-time points'), making the operation clear. However, it does not name or distinguish from sibling tools points_list_top or points_list_watchtime, which also list points, so the agent must infer the distinction from the 'all-time' qualifier alone.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The 'all-time' qualifier implies a scope, but the description does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over points_list_top or points_list_watchtime, nor does it state any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.