list_champions_of_genomicsRead the permanent paginated ranking of confirmed financial support, including structured advertising placements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond that: the ranking is permanent, paginated, based on confirmed financial support, and includes structured advertising placements. No contradiction with the annotations exists.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: 'permanent', 'paginated ranking', 'confirmed financial support', and 'structured advertising placements' all add meaningful information.
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 low-complexity read-only list tool with two optional pagination parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the resource and pagination. The output schema covers return values, and the annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.
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 carries the burden of explaining page and page_size. It only mentions that the ranking is 'paginated', which is a weak hint, and does not add meaningful semantic detail to either parameter beyond the schema's defaults and constraints.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Read', and a clear resource: a permanent paginated ranking of confirmed financial support. It distinguishes the tool by topic and by the detail about advertising placements, though it does not explicitly compare itself to the sibling list_champions_of_reach.
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 this is the read-only leaderboard for genomics champions, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent can infer the likely use case, yet there is no explicit exclusion or comparison against 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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, but get_receipt and get_reach_receipt are easy to confuse because of their similar names and adjacent receipt concepts. The champions lists and relay tools are also related but their descriptions make the distinction clear enough.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (accept_, create_, get_, list_, register_, sponsor_, verify_). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic verbs.
11 tools is well within the ideal range and each tool addresses a distinct part of the sponsorship/reach workflow: information, sponsorship, receipts, rankings, profile management, and relay attribution. No tool feels redundant.
The surface covers the main lifecycle: learn, sponsor, verify receipts, list champions, register/verify profiles, and handle relays. Minor gaps exist such as no tool to list relays or list receipts by account, but these can be worked around using known IDs.