Get the Arcadia points leaderboard (paginated). For a specific wallet's points balance, use read_wallet_points.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max leaderboard entries to return (default 25) | |
| offset | No | Skip first N leaderboard entries for pagination |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| leaderboard | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the pagination behavior, which is a key operational detail beyond annotations. This is sufficient contextual disclosure for a read operation with an output schema.
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 two sentences with minimal waste: the first states the primary action, the second gives a clear alternative. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 leaderboard tool with schema-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, pagination, and an alternative for a related use case. No additional context is necessary.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both limit and offset, including defaults and meanings. The description's mention of 'paginated' reinforces parameter usage but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score is appropriate.
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 gets the Arcadia points leaderboard, a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool read_wallet_points by indicating that tool is for wallet-specific balances, eliminating ambiguity.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool (leaderboard) and when to use the alternative read_wallet_points for a specific wallet's balance. This provides clear differentiation and guides correct selection among sibling tools.
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 targets a distinct resource and action, with clear read/write separation and detailed descriptions that specify exact use cases. Overlapping tools like write_account_deposit vs write_account_add_liquidity explicitly cross-reference to avoid misuse, and the asset-manager variants are clearly differentiated by staking/compounding/CowSwap behaviors.
All tools follow a consistent read_* / write_* prefix with snake_case resource and action naming. Subgroup patterns are uniform (e.g., write_account_*, write_asset_manager_*), and the only outlier, dev_send, is intentionally marked as a dev-only exception.
Forty tools is a very large surface, well above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. The seven separate write_asset_manager_* intent tools are highly granular and could likely be consolidated into a single parameterized automation tool, reducing cognitive load.
The tool set covers the full Arcadia lifecycle: account creation, collateral deposit/withdrawal, borrowing/repayment, LP add/remove/close, staking, automations, lending pool deposits/redeems, and comprehensive read operations. No obvious workflow dead ends exist, and all necessary supporting reads (prices, allowances, balances) are present.
