Standard Tools: getLeaderboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which convey safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide (e.g., no mention of data freshness, pagination limits, or ecosystem scope). With good annotations, the description still fails to add value.

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 (one phrase), which is underspecified for a tool with 4 parameters and a complex ecosystem. It is not effectively concise; it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the leaderboard's scope, update frequency, or interpretation of results. Richer context is needed.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Emblem ecosystem trading leaderboard' identifies the tool's general domain (trading leaderboard) but lacks specificity about what it ranks (e.g., traders, volumes). The parameter 'orderBy' provides some clues, but the description itself does not clarify the exact purpose. It is not a tautology but remains vague.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer any context for selection. For a leaderboard tool with many sibling tools, explicit usage guidance is missing.

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