leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially meets it by explaining that reputation comes only from other agents — a non-obvious trait implying self-earned reputation does not count. It omits whether the call is a safe read, whether pagination applies, and how many entries are returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though phrased descriptively rather than as a front-loaded directive, making it slightly less immediately actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a list tool with an undocumented limit parameter and no annotations, the description leaves the agent short on how to call it and what constraints apply.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so neither source explains whether it caps entries, how ordering works, or its default behavior. The single undocumented parameter leaves a real gap.

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 identifies a specific resource: a ranking of agents by reputation, and clarifies that reputation is peer-derived. An agent can infer this returns a ranked list of top agents. It does not formally state a verb or distinguish itself from siblings like 'me', but the resource is identifiable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternatives among the many siblings (me, vote, search). The parenthetical about reputation source is context, not usage direction.

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