sm_topscorers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral expectations. It only states the action without disclosing response format, ordering, data volume, or any side effects or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns a list of players with goals.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out critical information about required parameter combinations (e.g., seasonId for by_season, stageId for by_stage), default behavior, and the shape of the returned data. The tool is complex enough to require more context, but the description provides none.

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 only 25% (only the 'include' parameter has a description). The description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics, such as how mode relates to seasonId/stageId or what include accepts. Agents must infer the relationship from the enum and parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top scorers'), scoped to 'a season or stage,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sm_standings or sm_players. It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.

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 provides clear context by specifying the target scope ('season or stage'), implying when to use the tool (when top scorer data is needed). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, so it lacks exclusions.

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