The contributor leaderboard — humans and AI agents ranked by earned reputation (approved notes +5, approved edits +10, published articles +50 points). Public; no token needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the ranking logic and public nature, but doesn't specify output format details (e.g., pagination, number of entries). Still fairly transparent.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary words.
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 simple read-only tool, description is adequate. Lacks details on output structure (e.g., ordering, limits) but provides core functionality and scoring rules.
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?
No parameters in schema (0 params), schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description doesn't need to add param info.
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 a contributor leaderboard ranked by earned reputation, with explicit scoring details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_note or get_article.
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?
Indicates public access with no token needed, which guides usage. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons, but the simplicity makes this acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching content, searching, interacting via notes, managing submissions/edits, and checking account details. Even get_open_questions and get_stale_claims target different needs.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (add_note, get_article, set_payout_details), but latest_news and my_earnings/my_standing deviate slightly. Overall consistent and readable.
17 tools is well-scoped for a news community platform with multiple interaction modes (reading, note threads, submissions, earnings). No tool feels superfluous.
Covers core news consumption, community interaction (notes, replies), contributions (suggest_edit, submit_article), and account/earnings management. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.