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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only ranking query but never states the sort order, tie-breaking, whether it's global or scoped, or whether any auth is needed. The points-category enumeration is the only real behavioral context added.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core resource and scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though the parenthetical point-category list is slightly dense for the amount of value it adds.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, this is roughly adequate: it says what is ranked and what is returned. However, ranking metric, sort direction, and tie-breaking remain unstated, which an agent may need to interpret results 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 coverage is 100%, so the sole 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'top N wallets' loosely maps to it but adds no syntax or default nuance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (on-chain activity-points leaderboard) and the metric breakdown (mine/merge/stake/pvp-win points) with the scope (top N wallets). It's clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_recent_activity or get_collection_stats.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The reader must infer from the name alone that this is a ranked-list query distinct from get_recent_activity or get_collection_stats. No prerequisites, no when-not conditions.

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