Show how often you punished opponent blunders and which winning chances you let slip, including forced mates missed, ranked by cost and recency.
How often the player used the opponent's blunders, and the costliest chances missed.
missed_mates lists forced mates the player had and let go: shortest mate first, then newest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| last_n | No | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| time_class | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful detail—`missed_mates` are ordered shortest mate first, then newest—but omits data scope, authentication needs, return behavior, and how `n`/`last_n` affect results.
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 compact and front-loads the main purpose before the `missed_mates` detail. There is little waste, though the phrasing is slightly dense and could be clearer about the report structure.
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?
For a four-parameter analysis report with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It explains the concept and one output field ordering but does not cover parameter meaning, usage conditions, or report scope.
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 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. `n`, `last_n`, `username`, and `time_class` remain semantically undocumented beyond their bare types/defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a specific analytical purpose: measuring how often the player capitalized on opponent blunders and summarizing costliest missed chances, plus a specific `missed_mates` ordering rule. It does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as `worst_moments` or `conversion_report`, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `worst_moments`, `conversion_report`, or `tilt_report`. Usage is only implied by the metric name and description, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.