tips_topList a channel's top tippers, including tip count, total, average, and first/last tip dates, to identify top supporters and review tipping history.
List the channel's top tippers with tip count, total, average, and first/last tip dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output-shape context (which aggregates are returned), but says nothing about how many tippers are returned, ordering, or any limit behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and returned fields are stated immediately with no redundant restatement of the title.
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 no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned fields, but it leaves open how many entries constitute 'top' and how this differs from tips_leaderboard. Adequate but incomplete for an agent choosing between the two.
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?
There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the channel id and its default fallback. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.
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 (top tippers) and enumerates the returned fields (count, total, average, first/last tip dates). However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling tips_leaderboard, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. With siblings tips_list and tips_leaderboard covering very similar ground, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.