faceit_getGlobalRanking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a retrieval operation (GET endpoint) but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination behavior, default sorting, or response structure. The parameter details are present but not behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then includes an endpoint block and parameter list. While not overly long, it could be more concise by integrating the endpoint into the first sentence and trimming redundant details. The structure is adequate but not optimal.

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?

The description lacks an output schema and only states 'Returns: Ranking' without explaining the structure, pagination metadata, or field meanings. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete, especially missing details on the country filter and pagination behavior.

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%, meaning the schema itself lacks parameter descriptions. The tool's description compensates by listing each parameter with its type, location (path/query), required status, and constraints (min/max for offset and limit). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

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 'Retrieve global ranking of a game' and provides usage context for a global leaderboard page. It distinguishes from getPlayerRanking by noting when to use the alternative. However, it does not differentiate from other similar ranking tools like getLeaderboard or getHubRanking, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use for a page of the global game/region leaderboard' and advises using getPlayerRanking or passing player_id for a specific player. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance, though it doesn't cover all sibling alternatives.

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