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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains ranking methodology (entry pricing, win condition, penalties for rug-shills, minimum calls) and includes the on-watch bench. Covers behavioral traits beyond a simple list.

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?

Single dense sentence packs significant detail without redundancy. Could be split for readability but is not overly long. Every part is informative.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not specify return fields or structure. It mentions 'on-watch bench' but lacks detail on what each row contains. Incomplete for a data retrieval tool.

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?

Only one parameter 'limit' with full schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'max rows (default 20)'. Baseline score of 3 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?

Explicitly states the tool returns a KOL leaderboard ranked by verified onchain call performance. Details like ranking criteria, win condition, penalties, and bench distinguish it from sibling tools like get_chain_stats or get_token.

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 when to use (for leaderboard data) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. No comparison with siblings or exclusion scenarios.

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