lichess_top_players

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, sorting criteria, or whether it returns all-time top players or recent ones. Significant gap for a read tool.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it may be too brief at the expense of completeness.

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 low complexity and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It misses usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details needed for correct invocation.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The nb parameter is not described in schema or description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action (get top players), resource (Lichess players), and constraint (for a game mode). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lichess_user and lichess_user_games, which are player-specific, and chess_leaderboards which is for Chess.com.

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 information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use, no mention of prerequisites or limits. The description is too brief to guide appropriate usage.

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