chesscom: Get leaderboards

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, making the behavior clear. The description adds the list of categories but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, pagination). It is adequate but not enhanced beyond 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource, followed by a concise list of categories. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool does given its simplicity: no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations. It lists all categories, but lacks detail on output format. Still, it is complete enough for an agent to decide to use it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states 'Get Chess.com global leaderboards across all categories' and enumerates the categories (daily, daily960, etc.), specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It effectively distinguishes from sibling chesscom tools like chesscom_get_player, as leaderboards are unique.

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?

While no explicit 'when to use' is given, the simple read-only nature and clear resource description imply usage context. Among chesscom tools, it is the only leaderboard endpoint, so ambiguity is low. A score of 4 reflects adequate implicit guidance.

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