Get Agent Arena leaderboard

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: only opted-in agents, ranking by PnL, minimum trades requirement, demo/house seeding until qualified, public data scope, paper trading (virtual funds), and disclaimer. This covers all needed context for safe use.

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 detailed but efficiently front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but not overly so—appropriate for the information density.

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 adequately explains what is returned (agent names, performance, per-venue breakdown, win rate) and constraints. All relevant context is covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detail about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (page and pageSize). It implies pagination but no additional 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the public Agent Arena leaderboard with specific ranking criteria (total realized PnL across venues, per-venue breakdown, win rate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_performance and get_arena_agent by explicitly mentioning use cases.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to see the field and where you stand.' It also recommends pairing with get_performance and get_arena_agent, and clarifies limitations (public data, paper trading, not financial advice).

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