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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it is token-specific and shows wallet profitability, but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior, or error handling for invalid addresses. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and scoping. The parenthetical clarification 'not a global wallet leaderboard' is concise and valuable, and there is no redundant wording.

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, token-specific leaderboard query with full schema coverage and safe annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, requirement, and output concept. It lacks output structure details, but with no output schema and straightforward semantics, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so all five parameters are documented with descriptions. The description reinforces token_address as central ('Requires a token contract address') but adds no new meaning about date formats, chain selection, or per_page behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'Nansen PnL leaderboard for a SPECIFIC TOKEN CONTRACT'. It explicitly contrasts with 'global wallet leaderboard', distinguishing it from sibling tools like getLeaderboard. It also states what it shows (wallets that profited most), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 states a prerequisite ('Requires a token contract address') and provides an exclusion ('not a global wallet leaderboard'), which helps prevent misuse. However, it doesn't name alternative tools (e.g., nansen_who_bought_sold or nansen_smart_money_trades) or describe scenarios where those would be more appropriate.

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