get_my_rankWhere THIS account ranks on the PnL leaderboard: rank, board size ("21 of 66"), PnL, ROI and equity — for one time span, or for every time span (ONE_DAY … ALL_TIME) when none is given. A null entry means the account is not ranked on that board (no qualifying activity in the window).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeSpan | No | One time span; omit for all five |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: a null entry means the account is not ranked on that board, and omitting timeSpan returns every time span. It also discloses the returned metrics (rank, board size, PnL, ROI, equity), which is helpful since no output schema is present.
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?
Two well-structured sentences carry the full payload: what the tool does, what it returns, how the parameter behaves, and the null meaning. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.
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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description is complete. It names every return category, explains all-span behavior, and gives the null semantics. A caller knows what to expect and how to interpret the result.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already explains the timeSpan parameter and that omitting it returns all five spans. The description reinforces this but does not add substantially new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?
The description identifies a specific verb ('ranks') and resource ('PnL leaderboard'), and clearly scopes the tool to 'THIS account'. It also lists the key return fields, which makes it easy to distinguish from related sibling tools like get_leaderboard and get_pnl.
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 clearly explains the main calling context: get this account's PnL leaderboard rank. It also specifies how the optional timeSpan affects the result, including the behavior when no timeSpan is given. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can select it confidently.
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 distinct, but there is overlap among the read-heavy account tools: get_balance/get_funding_status/fund virtually duplicate each other, and get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk/get_open_orders/get_positions all converge on equity and open-position data. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose, but several tools have fuzzy boundaries.
The overwhelming majority follow the expected verb_noun convention: get_*, place_*, cancel_*, close_*. Minor deviations such as batch_cancel, get_candles_multi, top_up_gas, and whoami make the pattern not perfectly uniform, but the inconsistency is small.
At 33 tools, the surface is beyond what most agents need and includes several redundant query helpers rather than genuinely distinct operations. A broad exchange can justify a large surface, but get_balance/get_funding_status, get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk, and get_candles/get_candles_multi make the set feel top-heavy.
The core lifecycle is well covered: market discovery, market data, order placement/cancellation, position management, risk, funding transfers, PnL, and account status. Obvious gaps are limited to historical order lookup by order ID, a way to cancel across all markets in one call, and a few optional account-history conveniences.