Season 0 leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the scoring semantics (+1 correct / -1 wrong), which is genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields. However it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup or whether it is scoped to a user or global.

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 front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource and its scoring rule with zero filler. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should sketch what the standings contain (rank, player, score). It explains scoring math but not the return shape, leaving an agent to guess what a response looks like.

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 defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The scoring sentence is domain context, not parameter meaning.

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?

Names a specific resource (Season 0 standings) and even encodes its scoring rule, so an agent knows this retrieves leaderboard data. The retrieval verb is only implicit, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like icare_positions or icare_wallet.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as icare_positions, nor any context about what the standings cover. The scoring rule implies a leaderboard but gives no selection criteria.

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