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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing meaningful behavioral traits: entries carry factual backtest metrics and a verification hash, no return promises are made due to rule 8, the 'concise' detail trimming behavior, and the fact that the result includes a template_id to chain into clone_strategy. This enriches the readOnly/idempotent annotation context substantially.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating options. Each sentence contributes a specific constraint or behavior, from 'Crypto-only' to 'no return promises' to the detail mode semantics. The formatting is a bit dense but not wasteful.

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 tool with an output schema and all-optional parameters, the description covers core invocation needs: defaults, sort values, and detail modes are provided. The remaining gaps are primarily around limit semantics and strategy_type, but the tool can be reasonably invoked with zero parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does helpfully spell out sort options, defaults, and the detail=concise vs full behavior. However, limit, caller_id, and strategy_type are not explained beyond their names, leaving meaningful ambiguity for the caller.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it is a leaderboard of top published strategies ranked by a verified backtest metric. It also adds a differentiating constraint, 'Crypto-only -- equity templates excluded,' and names the default sort. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_strategy_leaderboard or get_score_leaderboard, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides clear contextual guidance: it is for crypto published strategies, excludes equity templates, and is free. It also explains how the detail parameter relates to discover_strategies and clone_strategy. It does not explicitly name alternative leaderboard tools or give a direct 'when not to use' rule beyond the equity exclusion, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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