Trader Leaderboard

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description's additional behavioral load is light. The description adds the ranking/filtering intent but does not disclose return shape, whether 'losers' sorting is included, or other behavioral nuances beyond the schema fields.

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 compact and front-loaded, with three short sentences that directly state the action, key options, and intended use. There is no redundant or verbose wording.

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?

The description plus the fully documented schema is enough to invoke the tool for a basic leaderboard query. However, with no output schema and many overlapping sibling leaderboard tools, it would benefit from clarifying what the return payload contains and how this tool differs from alternatives like pulse_pnl_leaders or pulse_top_traders.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description restates sort keys and filters but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, and it omits 'losers' from the listed sort options.

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 names the resource (trader leaderboard) and the verb (get), and enumerates the sort and filter dimensions. It is specific enough to convey the core action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar leaderboard siblings like pulse_top_traders or pulse_pnl_leaders.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to find the best traders on Hyperliquid.' This tells an agent when the tool is relevant, but it does not mention exclusions or alternative leaderboard tools, leaving some ambiguity among the many sibling leaderboard/analytics tools.

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