Standard Tools: getLeaderboard

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, caching, or what the output contains. It does not contradict annotations but fails to add value beyond them.

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 concise at 5 words, but it omits necessary details. It is front-loaded but lacks substance. Every sentence should earn its place, and here a single noun phrase is insufficient for adequate communication.

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 moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, enum, no output schema), the description fails to explain what the leaderboard contains (e.g., trader rankings, metrics) or how parameters like 'query' work. Without output schema, the agent needs more context about return values.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples for the parameters (e.g., explaining what 'orderBy' values like 'aura' or 'pnl' mean). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema handles the burden.

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' clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving a trading leaderboard for the Emblem ecosystem, but lacks a verb like 'get' or 'list' to explicitly state the action. The name and title compensate, making it relatively clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emblemListCollections or getTopCollectionsByVolume. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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