trustmrr_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lacks information on rate limits, data freshness, authentication, pagination (though limits to top 100), or what happens on errors. The only extra behavioral hint is that revenue figures are verified through payment providers.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and crisply adds the data verification note. 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?

For a simple list retrieval with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it returns (top 100, ranked by metric, verified data). It does not specify output format, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it states the default value for 'metric' ('mrr') and implies it's a ranking metric. With 100% schema coverage and the description providing default info, it adequately compensates for the low parameter count.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'TrustMRR revenue leaderboard.' It specifies the scope: top 100 startups ranked by a selected metric. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trustmrr_startup (single startup) or trustmrr_search (search).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other TrustMRR tools. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The user must infer usage from the name and purpose alone.

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