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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety basics are covered. The description adds no behavioral context—no ranking basis, data freshness, pagination, or auth notes—so it contributes almost nothing beyond the structured 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?

At four words it is superficially concise, but it is under-specified rather than economical; the single fragment does not front-load a purpose or useful constraint, so it fails to earn its place as guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a three-parameter ranking endpoint with no annotations about ranking mechanics, the description omits what the leaderboard measures and how to interpret it, leaving an agent with insufficient context to select and invoke it confidently.

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 100%, and each of the three parameters (limit, window, sort_by) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, but baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this burden.

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 is a noun phrase that restates the tool name and implied resource; it names no verb and does not distinguish this tool from other Polymarket data endpoints or sibling leaderboard tools. An agent learns only that the result relates to a Polymarket leaderboard, not what operation is performed.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The fragment gives no signal for choosing polymarket_leaderboard over polymarket_events, polymarket_markets, or other leaderboard-style siblings such as producthunt_leaderboard.

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