lucille_my_stats

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields (total attempts, best score, wins, NFTs earned), providing key behavioral insight. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a stats check, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose and return fields. It is front-loaded with the action ('Check your playing stats') and lists examples. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but conciseness is achieved.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It lists several stats fields. However, it does not specify whether the returned data is exhaustive or if there are any limitations (e.g., time range). For an agent, it provides sufficient context to understand the tool's purpose and output.

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 input schema has one parameter ('player') with a description and pattern. The description adds the word 'your', aligning with the schema's 'Your Base wallet address'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks playing stats and lists specific data fields (total attempts, best score, wins, NFTs earned). It uses the verb 'check' and specifies the resource, making the purpose evident. While it distinguishes from siblings like leaderboard (public) and history (all actions), it does not explicitly differentiate itself, but the personal nature is implied.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the player must be registered or if the stats are for the current user only). The description assumes the user wants their own stats, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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