tool_stake_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a leaderboard and explains ranking criteria ('Higher stake + no slashes + longer membership = better ranking'). However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any potential side effects, though it is clearly a read operation.

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 concise (4 lines, two sentences plus an Args section). Every sentence adds value: explains purpose, ranking logic, and parameter. No superfluous content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could explain the return format (e.g., list of agent names with trust scores or stake amounts). It only describes ranking criteria but not the structure of results. For a simple leaderboard, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity.

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 compensates by explaining the single parameter top_n as 'Number of agents to show (default: 10)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's title and default value.

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 'Get the trust leaderboard — top staked agents ranked by trust score.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trust leaderboard'), and the mention of 'staked agents' and 'trust score' distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_reputation_by_stake or tool_slash_stake.

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 usage for viewing most trustworthy agents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_reputation_by_stake. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named.

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