get_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only operation ('Get'), which is accurate and unambiguous. However, it does not disclose any potential pitfalls such as pagination, default result limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. A moderately thorough description for a simple read tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, includes the key metrics, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states what the tool returns (rankings, ROI, performance metrics) and the scope. It does not mention the default limit or pagination behavior, but the schema covers that. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit', which includes a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the current ClawdsBet bot leaderboard'. It specifies the resource (leaderboard), the scope (all competing AI bots), and the included metrics (rankings, ROI, performance metrics). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bot_stats and get_markets.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get a leaderboard of all bots), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the tool is a high-level overview, it is distinct enough that the context is clear, but it lacks explicit exclusions.

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