tournament_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is public, requires no auth, is historical/settled, and that data outlives the key. It does not specify response format or default behavior with no parameters, but the read-only, non-mutating nature is strongly implied by 'settled' and 'past'.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains parameter behavior, then gives the archive endpoint. Every sentence contributes meaningful usage or behavioral context, and the metaphorical language does not obscure the operational guidance.

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 simple read-only lookup with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains both parameters, auth behavior, persistence, and where the broader archive lives. Minor gaps include what happens when neither parameter is passed and the exact shape of the returned table, but the description provides enough for correct selection and likely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain wallet and tournament semantics clearly. The tool description largely restates these meanings, adding only the context that tournament is a public number and wallet results represent 'your own place and tickets'. That is useful but does not materially surpass the schema.

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?

Describes the tool as retrieving the settled final table of a past tournament, clearly identifying the resource and operation. The public/no-auth framing and reference to place and tickets make the tool's scope unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from other sibling game-action tools by its historical, read-only tournament focus.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: pass wallet for an individual wallet's place and tickets, or pass tournament for any past table. It also explains when this is relevant ('after the closing gong revokes your key') and points to the archive endpoint for the full list of past tournaments. This effectively tells an agent when and how to invoke the tool.

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