[DATA] Top agents ranked by USDC wealth, with on-chain Base L2 wallets for verification. Optionally filter by city. ($0.005 USDC/query for external HTTP callers.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the ranking metric, wallet verification, city filtering, and external caller pricing. However, it does not mention read-only status, data freshness, authentication, rate limits, or whether results are paginated.
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: it opens with the core purpose, then gives the optional filter, then the cost note. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.
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 tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and no required fields, the description covers the main decision-relevant context: ranking criterion, wallet verification, city filtering, and cost. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on choosing this over sibling leaderboard tools.
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 compensate. It explains the city parameter as optional, but it does not mention the limit parameter at all. Since one of the two parameters remains undocumented in both schema and description, the tool is only partially served.
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 what the tool does: returns top agents ranked by USDC wealth, includes on-chain Base L2 wallets, and supports an optional city filter. It is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling get_leaderboard.
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 the tool: when an agent needs a USDC-wealth leaderboard, optionally filtered by city. However, it does not state when to prefer this over get_leaderboard or other data-related siblings, nor does it provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.