pulse_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the parameters and their defaults, but does not mention if the operation is read-only, any rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond limit), or response format details (beyond useToonFormat).

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, efficiently conveys core purpose and key features. Well front-loaded with the main action.

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?

While the description covers purpose and key parameters, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., what fields are returned per trader). Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive for an agent to fully understand behavior without additional context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists sort options and filters, which overlaps with schema descriptions (e.g., 'day/week/month/allTime'). It adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a ranked trader leaderboard, enumerates sort criteria (PnL, win rate, volume, score, risk-adjusted returns) and filters (time period, minimum trades). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pulse_trader_profile by focusing on rankings.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find the best traders on Hyperliquid,' giving a clear context for use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many pulse_ sibling tools.

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