razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the ranking metric (profit) but omits other behavioral traits like caching behavior, response format structure, or rate limiting. The mention of 'top players' implies a sorted/ranked return, which adds some value beyond the function name.

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 consists of two efficient, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. While appropriately concise, it errs on the side of under-specification—additional context about the filtering dimensions (game type, time period) could have been added without sacrificing clarity.

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 read-only tool with three optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the minimum necessary context by explaining the return value (profit-ranked players). However, it fails to mention the available filtering capabilities (gameType, period) which would help agents construct appropriate queries.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are already well-documented (gameType options enumerated, period values specified, limit constraints defined). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the schema is sufficiently descriptive that no compensation is needed, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves a leaderboard ranked by profit ('Returns top players by profit'), specifying both the resource and the ranking metric. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from potentially similar data tools like get_agent_stats or get_match_history, though the profit-based ranking provides implicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication requirements. Given the many sibling data retrieval tools (get_balance, get_match_history, get_profile), the absence of selection criteria forces the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

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