fomo_get_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the window options but doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what the leaderboard contains (e.g., rankings by PnL, volume), pagination, or rate limits. The behavior is minimally described.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the resource name. The window values are listed compactly. However, it's so terse that it sacrifices necessary context; still, 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know what the leaderboard ranks (users by what metric?), what the response looks like, or how to choose a window. Sibling tools like fomo_get_user_rank suggest ranking context that is missing here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the allowed window values (24h, 7d, 30d, all) which adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't explain the default behavior when window is omitted, the format expected, or what each window means precisely.

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 states 'User leaderboard' which identifies the resource, but the verb is implicit (get/fetch). It distinguishes from 'fomo_get_clan_leaderboard' by the 'User' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The window values are listed, adding some clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fomo_get_user_rank or fomo_get_clan_leaderboard. The window parameter is mentioned but there's no context on typical use cases or exclusions.

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