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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful data caveats beyond annotations: amounts may be unavailable, return percentage fields are null, legacy aliases exist, and settledMarkets counts confirmed non-void traded markets.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph contains no obvious filler. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, but every clause conveys relevant leaderboard behavior or caveats.

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?

With an output schema and fairly rich parameter descriptions, the definition gives enough context for correct invocation. The description covers the tricky sort and data-availability semantics, though it does not mention pagination or generation-pinning behavior directly.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics for `sort`, including canonical displayed-price performance, RETURN aliasing PNL, and CREATOR_QUALITY returning creators, though it does not expand on the remaining parameters.

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 identifies the resource as a ranked public leaderboard and explains what different sort values return, including traders versus creators. It is specific about the data being the same as the public view, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.

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?

Usage is mostly implied by the leaderboard context. The description explains sort-value effects but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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