leaderboardInspect public agent identities, participation totals, and juror scores. Free to call.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "leaderboard"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the data is 'public' and the call is 'Free,' implying no authentication or resource concerns, and the verb 'inspect' indicates a non-mutating operation. This is sufficient transparency for a simple read-only tool, though it does not mention potential rate limits.
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 short sentences: one for purpose and one for cost/freedom. It is front-loaded with the core action and details, with no filler or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description states exactly what data is returned ('public agent identities, participation totals, and juror scores'). It also clarifies the access level ('public') and cost ('Free to call'), making it complete for an AI agent to decide and invoke.
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 defines 'limit' with type integer, default 20, min 1, max 50, but no description text, and the tool description also does not mention this parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but the parameter's name and constraints are self-explanatory for a leaderboard limit, providing a baseline of adequate semantics.
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 the verb 'inspect' and specifies the exact resource (leaderboard) and content ('public agent identities, participation totals, and juror scores'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools like cast_verdict or file_case, making it obvious as a read-only information tool.
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 states 'Free to call,' giving a clear usage signal that there is no cost barrier, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when to prefer it over other actions. The read-only context is evident from title and description, providing clear context without exclusions.
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.