leaderboardRead the public UsageMax leaderboard (maximum 100 rows).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metric | No | Rank by aggregate tokens or tracked spend. | tokens |
| period | No | Choose the bounded reporting window. | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]Input schema / properties / metric / descriptionAdded value: +"Rank by aggregate tokens or tracked spend."Input schema / properties / period / descriptionAdded value: +"Choose the bounded reporting window."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the leaderboard is public (implying no auth) and capped at 100 rows, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.
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 sentence with no filler. The key constraint (maximum 100 rows) is front-loaded, meeting the conciseness standard perfectly.
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 with 2 optional enum parameters and an output schema, the description plus schema and annotations fully cover what an agent needs. It lacks nothing essential for correct invocation.
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% with full descriptions for both 'metric' and 'period' parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter detail. The baseline of 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?
The description states a specific action ('Read') and resource ('public UsageMax leaderboard'), adding a row-limit constraint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like network_stats or public_profile, and an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
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 implies usage for accessing the leaderboard, and the sibling names (ask_site, network_stats, public_profile) do not overlap, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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.