Trader Leaderboard

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations cannot: the index start date (2025-03-22), a pointer to dataStartDate and data_coverage for the current window — an important caveat about result completeness.

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 front-loaded sentences with the core action first and filters second; nothing is padded. The parenthetical cross-references are slightly dense but carry real information.

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?

With no output schema and a pure read operation, the description covers the action, sort axes, filters, and data-window caveat well. Minor incompleteness: the undocumented 'losers' sort value and useToonFormat output switch are left entirely to the schema.

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 all five parameters (including enum values and the 1-100 limit range) are already documented structurally; baseline 3 applies. The description restates period and minTrades semantics but adds no format or syntax detail, and it silently omits the 'losers' sort mode and useToonFormat.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get ranked trader leaderboard') with the sort axes and filters enumerated, so the tool's function is unambiguous. However it never distinguishes itself from near-name siblings like pulse_pnl_leaders or builder_leaderboard, which also rank traders, so the agent must infer the split from other means.

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?

'Use this to find the best traders on Hyperliquid' gives a use case, but no when-not guidance and no reference to the competing leaderboard tools in the sibling set. For a category with several similar ranking tools, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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