polymarket_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure and does useful work: it reveals the output is normalized, names the underlying Data API, and states no credentials are required. It does not explain what normalization entails or describe pagination/error behavior, but for a simple read-oriented list tool this is meaningful transparency.

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-loads the core action in the first sentence. The third sentence repeats enum values already present in the schema, which is slightly redundant, but it does not bloat the description enough to warrant a lower score.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values more fully. It says rows are normalized but does not indicate the fields in each row, default window/sort behavior, or whether any ordering is applied. For a simple three-optional-param list tool the basics are present, but the missing return-structure details leave a gap.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including default and max for limit and enum lists for window and sort_by. The description repeats the enum values for window and sort_by but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: "List Polymarket leaderboard rows." The description further clarifies it returns normalized trader leaderboard rows from a specific API, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is readily distinguishable from the many other polymarket_* siblings.

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 implies usage — call this to get leaderboard rows — and notes the data source is credential-free, which hints at low friction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusion conditions or sibling comparisons.

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