get_leaderboards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without mentioning response format, pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns a single leaderboard or multiple. The agent is left without any behavioral expectations beyond the verb.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to the purpose. This is an example of efficient under-specification.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains or any relevant details about the leaderboards (e.g., types, scope). It only states the action without describing the return value or any specifics, leaving the agent without sufficient context to correctly interpret the tool's output.

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 zero parameters, the schema is empty and the description adds nothing beyond it. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'Get Chess.com leaderboards' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_player_stats or get_tournament, which target different entities. The resource is unambiguous and the purpose is immediately clear.

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 implies usage when leaderboard data is needed, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Since there are no similar sibling tools (none fetch leaderboards), the lack of exclusion guidance is acceptable, but the absence of any contextual hint prevents a higher score.

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