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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but it doesn't contradict them. With annotations present, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and usage in a compact way. No fluff, no redundancy, every word earns its place.

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 an output schema, so return details are covered. The description covers the core use case with sorting/filtering mentioned. It's complete enough for a straightforward read-only query tool, though it could optionally note the ranking types or exchange scope, but these are in the schema.

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%, with all 6 parameters fully documented including enums, defaults, and descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter details beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is correct. It doesn't compensate further but also doesn't need to.

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 returns ranked smart-money traders with sorting and filtering, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_elite_leaderboard by focusing on 'smart-money traders' and 'sorting and filtering', but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user wants ranked smart-money traders...'), which is clear usage context. However, it doesn't provide when-not-to-use guidance or explicitly mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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