chesscom_get_player_stats

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about safety.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information and contains no extraneous content. It is maximally concise while conveying essential purpose and scope.

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 simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns: stats by time control with ratings, best, and W/L/D records. It is complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 single parameter username is well-documented in the input schema. The description adds meaning about what stats are returned, but does not provide additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Get', resource 'Chess.com player's stats', and specifies scope including time controls and specific stats. It differentiates from sibling tools like chesscom_get_player (profile info) and chesscom_get_player_archives (game archives).

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 implies use this tool for player stats by time control, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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